QUESTION : The quality of higher education in India requires major improvements to make it internationally competitive. Do you think that the entry of foreign educational institutions would help improve the quality of higher and technical education in the country? Discuss. 



 Higher Education In India



 India has scored considerably low in the international Academic Freedom Index (AFI) with a score of 0.352, which is closely followed by Saudi Arabia (0.278) and Libya (0.238).



  • Increase the gross enrolment ratio (GER) in higher education from 25 per cent in 2016-17 to 35 per cent by 2022-23.
  • Make higher education more inclusive for the most vulnerable groups.
  • Adopt accreditation as a mandatory quality assurance framework and have multiple highly reputed accreditation agencies for facilitating the process.
  • Create an enabling ecosystem to enhance the spirit of research and innovation.
  • Improve employability of students completing their higher education.




  • The private sector accounts for a large share of institutions, managing 36.2 per cent of universities, 77.8 per cent of colleges and 76 per cent of standalone institutions in 2016-17.
  • India’s higher education GER (calculated for the age group, 18-23 years) increased from 11.5 per cent in 2005-06 to 25.2 per cent in 2016-17. However, we lag behind the world average of 33 percent.
  • GER is 26.0 per cent for males and 24.5 per cent for females.
  • The GERs for scheduled castes (SCs), scheduled tribes (STs), other backward castes (OBCs) and minorities have been increasing, these are still below the overall average in most cases.
  • India’s expenditure on higher education as a percentage of its total budget has remained largely stagnant, hovering around an average 1.47% over 12 years to 2018-19.
  • Funding for universities is also inconsistent with demand: Among public universities, around 97% of students study in state universities, but 57.5% of the government’s higher education budget goes to central universities and premier institutes like IITs and IIMs.
  • Indian universities have consistently ranked low in global university rankings: Not a single Indian university has ranked in the top 200, as per the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2019 and only five institutes made it to the top 500.



  • Fragmentation of the higher education system: Over 40% of all colleges run only a single programme, far from the multidisciplinary style of higher education that will be required in the 21st century. Over 20% of colleges have enrolment below 100, while only 4% of colleges have enrolment over 3000.
  • Too many silos; too much early specialisation and streaming of students into disciplines: India’s higher education has developed rigid boundaries of disciplines and fields, along with a narrow view of what constitutes education.
  • Lack of teacher and institutional autonomy: The lack of teacher autonomy has led to a severe lack of faculty motivation and scope for innovation.
  • Inadequate mechanisms for career management and progression of faculty and institutional leaders: The system of selection, tenure, promotion, salary increases, and other recognition and vertical mobility of faculty and institutional leaders is not based on merit but tends to be either seniority based or arbitrary. This has had the negative effect of severely disincentivising quality and innovation at all levels.
  • Outdated curriculum results in a mismatch between education and job market requirements, dampens students’ creativity and hampers the development of their analytical abilities.
  • There is no policy framework for participation of foreign universities in higher education.
  • There is no overarching funding body to promote and encourage research and innovation.



 Political interference:

  • Most universities in the country are subjected to unnecessary interference from governments in both academic and non-academic issues.


Rent-seeking culture:

  • A majority of appointments, especially to top-ranking posts like that of vice-chancellors, pro vice-chancellors and registrars, have become highly politicised.

 Bureaucratization of the education system:

  • Currently, many public educational institutions and regulatory bodies, both at the Central and State levels, are headed by bureaucrats.



  • Revitalising Infrastructure and Systems in Education (RISE) by 2022: Qualitatively upgrade the research and academic infrastructure in India to global best standards by 2022. Make India into an education hub by making available high-quality research infrastructure in Indian higher educational institutions.
  • Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) has been tasked to mobilise Rs. 1,00,000 crores for this initiative. As per this initiative, the scope of institutions to be funded through HEFA has been enlarged to encompass School Education and Medical Education institutions, apart from Higher Education.
  • UGC’s Learning Outcome-based Curriculum Framework (LOCF): LOCF guidelines, issued by UGC in 2018, aims to specify what graduates are expected to know, understand and be able to do at the end of their programme of study. This is to make student active learner and teacher a good facilitator.
  • Graded Autonomy to Universities & Colleges: 3-tiered graded autonomy regulatory system has been initiated, with the categorization based on accreditation scores. Category I and Category II universities will have significant autonomy to conduct examinations, prescribe evaluation systems and even announce results
  • Global Initiative for Academics Network (GIAN): The programme seeks to invite distinguished academicians, entrepreneurs, scientists, experts from premier institutions from across the world, to teach in the higher educational institutions in India.
  • All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE): The main objectives of the survey are to- identify & capture all the institutions of higher learning in the country; and collect the data from all the higher education institutions on various aspects of higher education.
  • National Institutional Rankings Framework was developed in 2015. The rankings are published annually since 2016. It outlines a methodology to rank educational institutions across the country based on five broad parameters:
  • Teaching, learning and resources;
  • Research and professional practice;
  • Graduation outcomes;
  • Outreach and inclusivity;
  • Perception



  • Regulatory and governance reforms: Restructure or merge different higher education regulators (UGC, AICTE, NCTE etc.) to ensure effective coordination.
  • Curriculum Design:

 Set minimum standards in curriculum to serve as benchmark for institutions at the undergraduate and post-graduate levels. Update curriculum & pedagogy with feedback from domain experts, faculty, students, industry, and alumni.

  • Accreditation Framework
  • Creating ‘world class universities’
  • Performance-linked funding and incentives
  • Improving the quality of education



  • The NEP, 2020 envisions some much-needed measures for the Indian educational system and there is the need for political will to put these provisions into practice.
  • This can ensure the fulfilment of the vision of making India a global knowledge superpower and also achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal-4 (SDG 4).


QUESTION :  Discuss the issues involved in interfaith marriages? What are the constitutional rights involved in these marriages? 




 Inter-faith Marriage



 The astounding proposal by Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to enact a law to curb what they call ‘love jihad’ reeks(smells) of a vicious(harmful) mix of patriarchy and communalism



 The term “love jihad” was first mentioned in around 2007 in Kerala and neighbouring Karnataka state, but it became part of the public discourse in 2009. Jihad, also called Romeo Jihad.

Love jihad’ is the term Hindutva politicians have coined and use to describe an imaginary conspiracy they themselves conjured up in which Muslim men supposedly dupe unsuspecting Hindu girls into marriage in order to convert them to Islam

The latest debate on “Love Jihad” follows on from two separate incidents that have received national attention in the past month.

  • One was the alleged murder of a 21-year-old Hindu woman in Faridabad, near Delhi, by a man who – her family say – was stalking her and tried more than once to abduct her. Three people have been arrested over the crime, including the accused shooter, a Muslim man.
  • The second case was that of an advertisement by popular Indian Jewellery brand Tanishq featuring an interfaith couple. It showed a baby shower organised for the Hindu bride by her Muslim in-laws.



  • Most of interfaith marriage couples are forced to conversion.
  • In Muslim Personal law in order to get married to a non Muslim conversion is the only way.
  • Hindu religion allows only monogamy and those who want to marry second time takes another course.
  • The Maternal and paternal succession have complexion in interfaith marriages.
  • There is no provision regarding caste determination of child born out such marriages.
  • Special Marriage Act 1954 is not compatible with backwardness of the society.
  • There is debate over the validity of Article 226 in context of annulling the interfaith marriage by high court.



  • The UN Convention against torture is an international treaty signed and enforced in 1984 and 1987 respectively.


Significance of the convention:

  • It aims to prevent torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment around the world.
  • It considers all acts of torture as criminal offence.
  • It includes right of compensation for victims.
  • It forbids nations to send citizens to any country where they believe the transported person may be tortured.
  • It inspires the countries and individuals to avoid inhuman treatment to others.



  • The state government argued that it is duty of state to protect the dignity of women from the men, by concealing their identities and operating secretly.
  • The UP government referred to a recent order of the Allahabad High Court which said religious conversion for the sake of marriage is unacceptable. The court in its order observed that conversion “just for the purpose of marriage”, and where the religious belief of the party involved is not a factor, is unacceptable.



  • Indian constitution in its Part III (Articles 25 to 28) endorses the freedom of religion in India (for Indian citizens and anyone who resides in India) along with specified limitations. However, the term religion is nowhere defined in the Indian Constitution but it has been given expansive content by way of judicial pronouncements.
  • Although Indian position on the freedom of religion entails limited & permissible interference of the state in religious matters, various state governments (Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, MP, Odisha etc.) have enacted anti-conversion laws with the purported aim of preventing conversions brought about by coercion or inducements. Such laws have been a subject of intense criticism and have been alleged as infringing on one’s right to freedom of religion.
  • What further compounds the issue is the absence of any explicit right to convert in the provisions relating to the concerned fundamental right in the Constitution. Court judgements in various cases have brought a certain crucial understanding on the matter of conversion in the country in light of freedom of religion and the individual’s right to choice.




 The Supreme Court in the case of Hadiya, a 26-year-old Homeopathy student gave followings observations:

  • Right to Choice: Freedom of faith is essential to individual’s autonomy. Choosing a faith is the substratum of individuality without which the right of choice becomes a shadow.
  • Liberty: Matters of belief and faith, including whether to believe, are at the core of constitutional liberty and the Constitution exists for believers as well as for agnostics.
  • Identity: Matters of dress and of food, of ideas and ideologies, of love and partnership are within the central aspects of identity. Society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners.
  • Constitutional Protection: Constitution protects the ability of each individual to pursue a way of life or faith to which she or he seeks to adhere.
  • The Supreme Court held that Right to choose religion and marry is an intrinsic part of meaningful existence. Neither the State nor “patriarchal supremacy” can interfere in person’s decision.

 The judgement reinvigorates freedom of religion and freedom of conscience which has been recognized under the international law under the Universal Declaration on Human Rights recognizing fact that the entire humanity enjoys certain alienable rights. India is also a signatory of the same.



  • Article 25: All persons are equally entitled to “freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.” subject to public order, morality and health, and to the other fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
  • Article 26: gives every religious group a right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its affairs, properties as per the law. This guarantee is available to only Citizens of India and not to aliens.
  • Article 27: This Article mandates that no citizen would be compelled by the state to pay any taxes for promotion or maintenance of particular religion or religious denomination.
  • Article 28: This Article mandates that No religious instruction would be imparted in the state funded educational institutions.



  • The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with marriage registration in case both husband and wife are Hindus, Buddhists, Jains or Sikhs or, where they have converted into any of these religions.
  • It is to be noted that Hindu Marriage Act deals with only marriage registration that has already been solemnized.



  • The Special Marriage Act, 1954 lay down the procedure for both solemnization and registration of marriage, where either of the husband or wife or both are not Hindus, Buddhists, Jains or Sikhs.
  • It is the duty of the judiciary to ensure that the rights of both the husband and wife are protection.
  • In case this union between the husband and wife breaks, it should be determined that if this break-up was a result of actions of any of the parties or not.



 It is indeed salutary as a principle that inter-faith couples retain their religious beliefs separately and opt for marriage under the Special Marriage Act. However, this principle cannot be used to derogate(diminish) from personal choice or become a ruse to interfere in the individual freedom to forge matrimonial alliances . Court verdicts in unrelated cases shouldn’t be a ruse to curb personal freedom to marry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *