Dear Reader,

The University Grants Commission (UGC), established by an Act of Parliament in 1956, is mandated to coordinate, determine, and maintain the standards of higher education in India. However, as The Probe finds, it has consistently failed to fulfil a critical aspect of its role—safeguarding students’ interests by ensuring that universities under its ambit maintain at least minimum academic standards, by preventing the proliferation of ‘fake’ universities. These fraudulent entities, lacking legal authorisation to confer degrees, operate under various guises, often branding themselves as “spiritual,” “theological,” or “cultural” institutions to evade detection and action.

Despite the UGC's mandate to oversee the functioning of universities, its role has largely been confined to issuing warnings, show-cause notices, and publishing lists of fake universities. The story examines some ‘universities’ that were declared ‘fake’ as far back as 2005 by the UGC, but have continued to operate and enrol students even 20 years later. The absence of stringent punitive measures and the exploitation of legal loopholes by these entities, as well as the abysmal coordination between the Centre and the states, contribute to the persistence of these fake entities. These systemic weaknesses in the regulatory framework underscore the urgent need for comprehensive reforms to protect students and uphold the integrity of India's higher education system.

That apart, in India’s universities, academic freedom has sharply declined, dropping 41 places over five years, since 2020, to rank 156th out of 179 countries in the 2025 Academic Freedom Index, released by Sweden’s V-Dem Institute. India now ranks below Pakistan, Bhutan, and Bangladesh. The Index evaluates five dimensions: research and teaching freedom, academic exchange, institutional autonomy, campus integrity, and cultural expression.

The steep decline reflects escalating tensions between students and university authorities, where protests increasingly encounter administrative silence or punitive measures. It underscores a broader institutional reluctance to engage with dissent and highlights a damaging assault on intellectual autonomy. Article 14 reports that friction between students and university administrations has become a nationwide phenomenon. This is particularly evident across publicly funded universities such as Ambedkar University Delhi (AUD), University of Hyderabad, University of Delhi, Jamia Millia Islamia in Delhi, and the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in Mumbai.

Conflicts over water are not infrequent, especially in water-starved regions hit by climate change and its consequences. However, Bhagatpur, a small village of 135 families located in Odisha, one of the country’s most drought-prone states, has bucked the trend. Backed by funds from the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), the village implemented a watershed project by rejuvenating water structures, setting a template for beating water stress.

As The Migration Story reports, they dug trenches and built percolation tanks and bunds to manage water flow, created new farm ponds, and repaired existing ones. They expanded from two community wells to over 70—all done by the labour of the locals, led by women, which generated a sense of ownership and pride. The water surplus has not only induced increased farm production but also fostered a sense of empowerment. This has led to better nutrition, renewed access to schools, and a deeper sense of generosity within the community

Earlier this month, on April 8, in a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India invoked Article 142 to grant deemed assent to bills that had long awaited approval from the Tamil Nadu Governor, against his exercising something of a ‘pocket veto’. This move has reignited debate over the nature and reach of Article 142, which empowers the Court to “pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice.”

The judgement was seen to be forced on the Apex Court to redress the imbalance between the Centre and the states, in terms of gubernatorial accountability. However, the judgement also raised a political firestorm, with some arguing that the Apex Court had indulged in a judicial overreach in this instance by stretching the use of Article 142. However, analysing the precedents of the use of the legislation, the Supreme Court Observer argues the Supreme Court has in fact been “circumspect” in calling on the law’s vast powers.

For more such stories from the grantees this week, please read on.

Warmly,

Sunil Rajshekhar
IPSMF