New UGC Guidelines Leave Legal Education Sector Uncertain
The University Grants Commission (UGC) has proposed new “Draft Guidelines for Introduction of Skill-Based Courses and Micro-Credit Courses in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs)” along with Standards Operative Procedures (SOPs). While the guidelines aim to promote skill development and practical training for students, they have raised concerns within the legal education sector.
The guidelines allow undergraduate and postgraduate students to undertake skill-based courses or micro-credentials. These courses can be taken as domain-specific credits, cross-domain credits, or employability enhancement courses. According to the UGC, this initiative is meant to provide students with practical skills, hands-on training, and on-the-job experience to better prepare them for the workforce.
Under the new rules, students can accumulate up to 50% of the total credits required for a degree from skill-based courses or micro-credentials in general universities. For skill universities, this limit is set at 60%, and in exceptional cases, it may go up to 70% for specialized skill programs. These courses can be undertaken through various modes such as lectures, practical training, internships, apprenticeships, and on-the-job training. Credits earned can also be stored in the Academic Bank of Credits (ABC) for future use.
The guidelines apply to all universities established under Central or State Acts, affiliated colleges, autonomous colleges recognized by the UGC, and institutions deemed to be universities. However, programs regulated by other statutory councils or bodies will require additional approvals. For instance, courses related to law may need permission from the Bar Council of India (BCI), creating potential complications for interdisciplinary studies.
A senior faculty member from Andhra University pointed out that the guidelines restrict universities’ autonomy in designing courses. While the guidelines encourage interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary studies, requiring approvals from bodies like the BCI for law-related courses limits the freedom of Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs).
For example, a Bachelor of Arts student wishing to study “Philosophy of Law” or an LLB student exploring credits in agriculture, aviation, or other specialized fields may need approval from the BCI. This requirement raises questions about how HEIs should navigate such permissions, potentially stalling academic innovation.
Similarly, students pursuing advanced or niche topics face uncertainty. A law postgraduate student working on a project about the intersection of intangible rights and intellectual property may not know which regulatory body to seek approval from. Likewise, an undergraduate student in religious studies wanting to study canon law’s influence on Western jurisprudence during British rule in India may encounter similar challenges.
Faculty members argue that these ambiguities create unnecessary hurdles for HEIs, especially in law. A professor from a Hyderabad law college commented, “It feels like opening doors for some and closing them for others.” The confusion over regulatory approvals leaves HEIs struggling to navigate the new system, potentially hindering interdisciplinary research and academic progress.
While the UGC’s initiative aims to empower students and enhance their employability, the legal education sector remains apprehensive about the practical implications of these guidelines. The lack of clarity on regulatory overlaps and the need for multiple approvals may ultimately undermine the freedom and flexibility that the guidelines hope to achieve.
