Executive Summary:
This document summarizes the Indian government's response to questions regarding the accreditation of Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs). It addresses concerns about irregularities in NAAC accreditation, the number of institutions failing to secure rankings, measures to restore public trust, the impact of ranking systems, plans for assessment frameworks, and funding for higher education. The information provided reflects data up to August 11, 2025.
Key Points / Main Content:
* **NAAC Accreditation and Assessor Removal:**
* NAAC assesses and accredits HEIs, grading them based on their achievements.
* The removal of 847 assessors from the assessor database followed scrutiny that began in October 2023.
* Reasons for assessor removal include consistently declining peer team visits, excessive visits compared to others, failure to submit Peer Team Reports (PTRs), incomplete database entries, and negative feedback from peers/HEIs.
* **NIRF Ranking:**
* NIRF ranks institutions based on five broad parameters.
* The India Rankings 2024 ranked sixteen disciplines/categories, announced in eight categories and eight subject domains.
* NIRF provides ranks for the Top 100 Institutions and rank bands for 101-150, 151-200, and 201-300.
* **Restoring Public Trust in Accreditation:**
* NAAC adopts a transparent, stakeholder-driven approach in developing manuals.
* NAAC has tightened its Assessment and Accreditation (AA) protocols to ensure rigorous scrutiny.
* **Ranking Methodology:**
* General Degree Colleges, State Universities, and Universities are ranked under separate categories.
* The ranking methodology considers parameters like citation-based metrics, student strength, faculty-student ratio, faculty qualification and experience, number of publications, placement and higher studies, median salary, students graduated, women diversity, regional diversity, and economically and socially challenged students.
* **Assessment Framework Reforms:**
* A committee under Dr. K. Radhakrishnan was formed to strengthen HEI assessment and accreditation.
* The committee considered strategic reforms aligned with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
* The goal is to adopt a simple, trust-based, objective, and rationalized system for approval, accreditation, and ranking using technology-driven systems.
* The Executive Committee of NAAC has adopted the recommendations of the Dr Radhakrishnan Committee report.
* **Funding for Higher Education:**
* Various schemes/projects/programmes run by the Ministry of Education have been aligned with NEP 2020.
* The budget allocation for higher education has increased from 2021-22 to 2025-26.
* The regulatory framework of UGC is for regulating the maintenance of standards and the coordination work or facilities in Universities
Impact Analysis:
* **Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs):**
* Impact: Subject to assessment and accreditation by NAAC, influencing their reputation and potentially their access to funding and recognition. Must adhere to revised assessment protocols and ranking methodologies.
* Action Required: Prepare for rigorous scrutiny during NAAC assessments, focus on improving performance across NIRF ranking parameters, and align with the reforms recommended by the Dr. Radhakrishnan Committee.
* **National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC):**
* Impact: Responsible for implementing tightened assessment protocols, ensuring transparent evaluation processes, and adopting reforms for a more robust and reliable accreditation system.
* Action Required: Implement revised assessment protocols, ensure transparency in the evaluation process, and adopt the recommendations of the Dr. Radhakrishnan Committee.
* **Assessors:**
* Impact: Subject to scrutiny and potential removal based on performance and adherence to guidelines. Those remaining will play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the accreditation process.
* Action Required: Adhere to NAAC guidelines for peer team visits and report submissions, provide complete and accurate information in the assessor database, and actively participate in the assessment process.
* **Ministry of Education:**
* Impact: Responsible for overseeing the accreditation and ranking processes, ensuring the integrity of the system, and allocating funding to support higher education.
* Action Required: Continue to monitor and refine the accreditation and ranking systems, allocate increased funding to support higher education, and align schemes/projects/programmes with NEP 2020.
Key Entities Referenced
National Assessment and Accreditation Council NAAC: A council that assesses and accredits Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) in India.
National Institutional Ranking Framework NIRF: A framework used to rank institutions in India based on parameters such as Teaching Learning and Resources, Research and Professional Practice, Graduate Outcomes, Outreach and Inclusivity and Perception.
National Education Policy, 2020: A comprehensive framework for education in India, aiming to transform the education system.
University Grants Commission UGC: A statutory body established by the UGC Act, 1956, responsible for the coordination, determination and maintenance of standards of university education in India.
Ministry of Education: The government ministry responsible for education in India.
Dr. K. Radhakrishnan Committee: A committee constituted to strengthen the Assessment and Accreditation of HEIs. Chaired by Dr. K. Radhakrishnan, Chairperson, Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Technology IIT Kanpur.
Indian Institute of Technology IIT Kanpur: An Institute of Technology located in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
Lok Sabha: The lower house of the Parliament of India.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
LOK SABHA
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 3543
ANSWERED ON 11/08/2025
Accreditation of Higher Educational Institutes
3543. Thiru Dayanidhi Maran:
Will the Minister of EDUCATION be pleased to state:
(a) whether any irregularities have been reported against Institutes in accreditation by
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) for securing high grades through
unethical means and around 20% assessors have been removed from NAAC and if so, the
details thereof;
(b) the total number of Institutes failed to secure the ranking during the last three yerars,
year-wise;
(c) the steps being taken by the Government to restore public trust in the accreditation
process and ensure transparent evaluation of higher educational institutions;
(d) whether the Government has assessed the adverse impact of over-reliance on ranking
system and citation-based metrics, especially disciplines like Humanities and Social
Sciences and if so, the details thereof;
(e) whether the Government has any plans to introduce peer-reviewed, context-sensitive
and discipline-specific assessment frameworks in place of metric-driven evaluations;
(f) whether the Government has any plan to enhance public fund for higher education and
reduce the regulatory dependence on rankings for grants, approvals and recognition; and
(g) if so, the details thereof along with timelines and if not, the reasons therefor?
ANSWER
MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(DR. SUKANTA MAJUMDAR)
(a) National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) assesses and accredits Higher
Educational Institutions (HEIs) in its quality pursuits and grades them in different levels for
their achievements.
Removal or addition of assessors from the database of Assessors is a routine
process of NAAC. The peer Review system is continuously improved by adding members
as per the requirements. The removal of 847 assessors from the database of Assessors is
consequential to the scrutiny started in October 2023 based on the set procedures.
Removal of the Assessors are due to one or more of the following reasons:
o Assessors who were constantly declining acceptance of peer team visits.
o Assessors who have done more visits as compared to other assessors.o Assessors who have not prepared and submitted the Peer Team Reports (PTRs) as
per the requirements. Incomplete entries in the Assessors database.
o Based on feedback from fellow Assessors / HEIs
(b) National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) ranks institutions based on five broad
parameters namely, Teaching Learning and Resources (TLR), Research and Professional
Practice (RP), Graduate Outcomes (GO), Outreach and Inclusivity (OI) and Perception
(PR). NIRF has ranked sixteen disciplines/ categories in the latest edition of India Rankings
2024. The ranks were announced in eight categories and eight subject domains. The NIRF
provides ranks and rank bands in all the above categories/disciplines. The ranks are
announced for Top 100 Institutions and rank bands from 101-150, 151-200 and 201-300 are
also announced.
(c) NAAC adopts a transparent, stakeholder-driven approach in developing its manuals,
aiming to raise benchmarks in line with evolving higher education trends. Over the past six
months, NAAC has significantly tightened its Assessment and Accreditation (A&A) protocols
to ensure rigorous scrutiny and uphold the integrity of the evaluation process.
(d) The General Degree Colleges, State Universities and Universities are ranked under
separate categories. The ranking methodology used to rank institutions considers several
parameters such as Citation based metrics, Student strength, Faculty student ratio, Faculty
Qualification and Experience, Number of Publications, Placement and Higher Studies,
Median Salary, Students Graduated, Women Diversity, Regional Diversity, Economically
and Socially Challenged students etc
(e) For strengthening the Assessment and Accreditation of HEIs, a Committee was
constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr. K. Radhakrishnan, Chairperson, Board of
Governors, lndian lnstitute of Technology (llT) Kanpur & Chairperson,
Standing Committee of llT Council. This Committee has considered the introduction of
strategic reforms consistent with the vision of the National Education Policy, 2020 and the
need for adopting a simple, trust-based, objective and rationalized system for approval,
accreditation and ranking of HEIs through technology-driven systems. The Executive
Committee of NAAC has adopted the recommendations of the Dr Radhakrishnan’s
Committee report.
(f) and (g) Various schemes/projects/programmes run by Ministry of Education have been
aligned with NEP 2020. As far as Central Government is concerned, Budget allocation has
constantly increased from the year 2021-22 to 2025-26 as given below:
Year 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26
Budget Allocation 93,224.31 1,04,277.72 1,12,899.47 1,21,117.77 1,28,650.05
(Rs. in Crore)
Regulatory framework of UGC made under the provisions of UGC Act, 1956 is for regulating
the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination work or facilities in Universities.
*****