The Galgotias Syndrome and Indian Higher Education

Every organisation, like a living organism, carries within it unseen vulnerabilities. Some are exposed to the unforgiving glare of public scrutiny; others drift quietly beneath the surface, undetected and undisturbed. Such was the misfortune in the case of Galgotias University, where an overzealous faculty member exceeded her brief and allegedly made unfounded and palpably false claims, regarding the innovative achievements of the University’s Centre of Excellence, at a recent international Artificial Intelligence Summit in New Delhi.

The episode proved embarrassing not only for the University but, by extension, for the country. Her remarks were amplified by sections of the media and on social networking platforms, casting the institution in an unfavourable light. Allegations resurfaced that the University had enjoyed political patronage and that a Union Minister had inaugurated the said Centre of Excellence. The statement of the faculty member had been telecast by Doordarshan, and the Minister overseeing the Summit had cited the purported innovation as an illustration of India’s strides in Artificial Intelligence. When the controversy intensified, the Minister’s remarks were withdrawn from the Summit’s website, and the University was reportedly asked to vacate its exhibition stall.

Amid the clamour, it was overlooked that the alleged misconduct was hardly an isolated aberration. Private universities were singled out swiftly, perhaps unfairly, and were subjected to sweeping criticism, accused of lowering academic standards and commercialising higher education. Yet the deeper reality is more complex.

The Malaise in Higher Education Runs Deep

Instances of academic misconduct have surfaced periodically across India’s higher education landscape, including within prestigious public institutions. A few examples illustrate the breadth of the problem:

• In 2012, a senior scientist and the Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), now a Deemed-to-be University, faced allegations of plagiarism for reportedly incorporating verbatim material from a UK publication into the report of a committee, on ‘Patentability of Drugs’, he chaired. He later acknowledged the lapse and stepped down from the committee’s leadership.
• Recently, a Vice Chancellor of Panjab University came under scrutiny after publishing more than twenty papers within two years – an output that many in academic circles considered implausibly prolific. It raised questions about authorship practices and research ethics.
• In 2002, the Vice Chancellor of Kumaon University resigned following accusations of scientific plagiarism involving research papers allegedly copied from other scholars.
• In 2024, forty-three papers authored by a senior scientist affiliated with CSIR-National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology and CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research were retracted by the journal Elsevier’s Bioresource Technology. It was alleged that, while serving as Chief Editor of another journal, he forwarded manuscripts to authors for revision and subsequently appeared as a co-author on the revised versions.

These instances, among many others, suggest that the malaise runs deeper than isolated lapses within private universities, though, the latter have their own major flaws. Academic misconduct reflects systemic weaknesses –  pressures to publish, inadequate oversight, and a culture that often prizes metrics over merit. Addressing this erosion of standards will demand not episodic outrage but sustained institutional reform, ethical leadership, and an unwavering commitment to academic integrity across the entire higher education system.

It Flows From the Top!

Innovation, in its broadest sense, is the purposeful introduction of new or significantly improved ideas, methods, products, or processes that create measurable value. It is not merely invention – the creation of something new – but the effective application of new thinking to solve problems or enhance outcomes. In the context of higher education, innovation implies the deliberate transformation of teaching, research, governance, and community engagement so as to strengthen learning outcomes, institutional effectiveness, and societal impact – in essence, the overall quality of education.

Against this backdrop, the performance of the University Grants Commission (UGC), the apex regulatory body for higher education in India, invites scrutiny. Its policy initiatives aimed at improving quality have often appeared derivative rather than original. The creation of the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) illustrates this concern. For long, Indian politicians, bureaucrats, academic leaders, students, and parents have relied upon university rankings as a proxy for quality. There was therefore a legitimate need for a ranking framework rooted in Indian realities and aligned with the aspirations of domestic stakeholders.

However, instead of crafting an indigenous and context-sensitive model, the framework promulgated by the UGC appears to have drawn heavily from established international ranking systems designed primarily for developed economies. As a result, NIRF tends to replicate prevailing global metrics rather than reimagining them for India’s distinct socio-economic landscape and academic environment. It remains largely input and metrics-driven, according prominence to publications, citations, patents, and similar quantitative indicators.

Crucially, two fundamental dimensions of university performance receive inadequate emphasis: first, the measurable value-addition to students’ knowledge, skills, and employability at the completion of a programme; and second, the tangible contribution of institutions to regional and national economic development. By privileging quantifiable research outputs over educational transformation and societal engagement, the framework risks incentivising peripheral activities that inflate rankings without necessarily enhancing academic rigour. It wouldn’t be an overstatement to say that the Galgotias episode at the International AI Summit was the manifestation of the system nurtured by the regulatory bodies.

In this sense, the adoption of borrowed templates without substantial contextual adaptation weakens the moral authority of the regulator to demand genuine academic innovation from institutions. True innovation in higher education would require not replication, but a bold rethinking of what “quality” means in the Indian context and how it ought to be measured.

Interestingly, similar is the case with the metrics developed by National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC).

The Prevailing Environment

Indian higher education faces several persistent challenges that constrain its ability to contribute fully to national development. Although access to universities and colleges has expanded rapidly over the past two decades, concerns about quality remain widespread. Many institutions continue to struggle with inadequate infrastructure, outdated curricula, a weak research culture, and a shortage of well-trained faculty. Teaching-learning processes often remain dominated by rote memorisation rather than critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving, thereby limiting meaningful learning outcomes. Weak industry-academia linkages, lack of clear research priorities, and insufficient funding further reduce the practical relevance and societal impact of higher education. In addition, regulatory complexity and uneven governance frequently slow the pace of reform and innovation within the system.

Another emerging concern relates to the increasing obsession with institutional rankings. In an attempt to improve their standing, some institutions and academics have found ways to exploit loopholes in ranking and evaluation frameworks. Instances have been reported where individuals are listed as co-authors of research publications despite having made little or no substantive contribution, primarily to secure credit for their respective institutions. Similarly, practices resembling citation cartels – where authors cite one another’s work on a quid pro quo basis – are used to artificially inflate citation counts. While such practices may improve numerical indicators and rankings, they do little to enhance the genuine quality, originality, or integrity of scholarship. Together, these structural weaknesses and ethical lapses undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the higher education system.

Institutions of National Importance. India’s so-called “Institutes of Eminence,” including leading institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management, Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, and laboratories under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, occupy a privileged position in the country’s higher education ecosystem. These institutions undeniably attract the brightest young minds at the undergraduate level, particularly in engineering, where admission to the IITs is widely regarded as the pinnacle of academic achievement. However, this selectivity is not equally reflected in their faculty profile or in enrolment at the postgraduate and doctoral levels. Only a small minority of faculty members in these institutions are themselves graduates of the same highly competitive system, and many premier institutes struggle to attract top Indian graduates into advanced research programmes. Consequently, the overall quality and impact of research often fall short of expectations. Research agendas frequently lack clear national direction, with limited alignment to pressing developmental challenges in areas such as energy, agriculture, environment protection, healthcare, and manufacturing. Moreover, these institutions receive substantial public funding without robust mechanisms that link financial support to measurable research outcomes, technological innovation, or societal benefit related to national development. In the absence of stronger accountability and strategic focus, the enormous intellectual and financial investment in these elite institutions risks delivering returns that are modest relative to their potential contribution to national development. Till recently, these institutions struggled to appear in the top bracket of world-wide rankings of universities. However, lately some of these have started paying attention to research publications and have done well in the rankings but their contribution to national development is far from noteworthy.

Public Universities. Many Indian public universities face deep structural challenges that affect their academic vitality and institutional effectiveness. Campuses are often heavily politicised, with Vice-Chancellors frequently appointed on the basis of political leanings rather than scholarly merit. As a result, institutional leadership becomes more focused on satisfying political patrons than advancing academic excellence. Interference by State Governors – who serve as Chancellors or Visitors – sometimes further complicates governance. No wonder, many state governments have demanded that Governors should not automatically be the Chancellors of the State Universities. That is not to say that that the appointees of the governments would be any better. Teachers’ unions, student organisations aligned with different political parties, and administrative staff associations often exert pressure that hamper decision-making. A vibrant research culture is largely absent, and both the quality of research and the teaching-learning processes remain weak, with pedagogy in many institutions still reflecting outdated methods. Curricula are often obsolete and difficult to update because of cumbersome bureaucratic procedures. At the same time, a large share of public funding is absorbed by salaries, leaving limited resources for academic development, faculty capacity building, or infrastructure improvement. The absence of clear accountability mechanisms compounds these problems, making meaningful reform slow and difficult.

Private Universities. Beginning around 2001, India’s changing demographic profile created an urgent need to expand access to higher education. In the absence of adequate public resources and infrastructure, the government had little option but to encourage the establishment of private universities on a large scale. However, many of these institutions prioritised the pursuit of profit over the national objective of providing quality and inclusive education. Consequently, most private universities focused on high-fee, market-oriented professional programmes, while comparatively neglecting disciplines such as the humanities and social sciences that are less financially lucrative. As a result, the broader goal of expanding equitable and balanced higher education could not be fully realised. The functioning of many private universities is marked by certain structural infirmities that undermine their academic credibility.

• Branding and Image-Building. Unlike universities in most developed countries, which build their reputation primarily through academic excellence and scholarly output, many private universities in India devote disproportionate resources to branding and aggressive marketing. Large sums are spent on advertisements, media campaigns, and promotional events designed to create a perception of excellence. Individuals, often with limited in intellectual prowess, familiarity with academic culture, standards, or the imperative of quality improvement, but skilled in marketing and public relations are employed to project the university’s image. In the quest to attract students, achievements are frequently exaggerated and rhetoric often substitutes for substance. Some institutions have also recognised that questionable practices exist in the corporate recruitment ecosystem. In certain instances, human resource representatives of companies are reportedly offered inducements to strengthen placement figures. These placements are then prominently advertised to attract prospective students. The underlying approach appears straightforward: dazzle students and parents with impressive publicity and inflated claims. Institutional incentives further reinforce such behaviour, as those who contribute to higher enrolment and revenue generation are rewarded, while genuine academic quality and long-term institutional development receive far less attention.
• Mass Admissions and Dilution of Academic Standards.Another troubling practice is the large-scale admission of students into academic programmes. In several universities, enrolments run into thousands within a single programme or department, inevitably diluting academic supervision and mentoring. There have been instances where departments employ over a hundred faculty members, making meaningful academic leadership and oversight virtually impossible. In one such case, the head of the department reportedly did not even know the names of many faculty members under his charge, let alone monitor their teaching or research performance. Regulatory norms require universities to clearly specify, well in advance, the number of seats in each programme in their prospectus; however, many institutions disregard these requirements and admit students far beyond manageable capacities. Such practices not only compromise academic standards but also create an uneven playing field, disadvantaging smaller institutions that cannot compete with the marketing machinery of large private universities. Regulatory authorities are not unaware of these violations, yet enforcement remains weak, often due to the political patronage enjoyed by the managements of some institutions.
• Precarious Faculty Employment and Casualisation.Faculty recruitment and service conditions in many private universities reveal another disturbing trend. A significant proportion of teachers are employed on short-term or ad hoc contracts with modest remuneration and little job security. Such arrangements discourage independent scholarship and academic freedom, as faculty members remain vulnerable to administrative pressures. Instead of fostering a stable community of scholars committed to teaching and research, these institutions often treat faculty as expendable resources whose primary role is to manage large classrooms and ensure high student throughput.
• Questionable Research Practices.Research output in many private universities is often driven by numerical targets rather than intellectual inquiry. Faculty members are frequently pressured to publish a certain number of papers, even as co-authors, annually for institutional rankings or accreditation exercises. This pressure has led to a proliferation of publications in predatory or low-quality journals that charge fees without providing rigorous peer review. In some cases, inflated claims are made regarding research achievements, patents, or international collaborations, thereby creating an impression of scholarly vibrancy that may not withstand closer scrutiny.
• Fee Structure. Private universities have come in for criticism for the exorbitantly high fee structure. High operational costs and capital expenditure are quoted to justify this. The Supreme Court has given numerous rulings to prevent profiteering in educational institutions. TheM.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka and its clarificatory rulings in Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka and Modern School vs. Union of India have laid down the governing principles for private educational institutions in India. The Supreme Court has held that establishing and running an educational institution is a legitimate occupation, and education can no longer be viewed purely as charity but as a vocation carried out within a regulatory framework. While institutions may generate a reasonable surplus for growth and development – often interpreted in practice as not exceeding about 15 percent – profiteering and capitation fees are strictly prohibited. To ensure transparency and prevent commercialisation, the Court has directed that fee structures of private institutions should be scrutinised by committees headed by a retired High Court judge and comprising academic and financial experts, such as university vice-chancellors and chartered accountants. However, neither the UGC nor any of the state governments have found it prudent to set up committees as directed by the Supreme Court and the private institutions are having a free run at the expense of students.
• Infrastructure Displayed Only for Inspections.Another widely reported practice relates to infrastructure and facilities. Laboratories, libraries, and other academic resources are sometimes developed primarily to satisfy regulatory inspections rather than to support sustained teaching and research. During visits by accreditation bodies or regulatory authorities, institutions showcase elaborate facilities that may remain underutilised or poorly maintained during the rest of the academic year.
• Manipulation of Rankings and Accreditations. The growing importance of national and international rankings has also prompted some institutions to focus on cosmetic improvements rather than genuine academic development. Considerable effort is often devoted to presenting favourable data to ranking agencies and accreditation bodies, sometimes through selective reporting or temporary arrangements designed to boost scores during evaluation cycles. While rankings can serve as useful indicators of institutional performance, an excessive preoccupation with them risks diverting attention from the fundamental missions of universities – teaching, research, and service to society. Compounding the problem is the emergence of numerous dubious ranking systems, often promoted by magazines and newspapers, in which institutions are ranked on the basis of extraneous or superficial factors rather than academic merit. Such rankings lack professional integrity, methodological rigour but are widely publicised, creating misleading perceptions about institutional quality. As a result, many parents and prospective students – often unfamiliar with the nuances of ranking methodologies – are misled into equating publicity with genuine academic excellence.

Taken together, these practices reflect a broader tendency among some private universities to privilege expansion, visibility, and revenue generation over the pursuit of academic excellence. Unless regulatory oversight becomes more effective and institutional governance more accountable, such trends may continue to erode the credibility of higher education.

The Way Forward – A Suggested Approach

Improving the quality of teaching, learning, and research in universities requires a comprehensive rethinking of academic practices, institutional priorities, and evaluation mechanisms. Higher education must evolve in response to changing societal needs, technological advances, and the learning preferences of younger generations. The traditional model of lecture-based instruction and rigid curricula is increasingly inadequate for preparing students to function effectively in a rapidly transforming world.

Learning Styles and Preferences of Generations Z and Alpha. A key step in this direction is to align teaching methods with the learning styles and preferences of contemporary learners, particularly Generation Z and the emerging Generation Alpha. These cohorts are digital natives who are accustomed to interactive, visual, and technology-enabled learning environments. Universities must therefore move beyond passive, one-way instruction and adopt pedagogical approaches that emphasise participation, problem-solving, collaboration, and experiential learning. Blended learning models – combining classroom engagement with digital resources – can make education more flexible, accessible, and engaging.

Pedagogy. Pedagogy itself must be modernised with the thoughtful integration of artificial intelligence (AI). AI-based tools can assist faculty in designing adaptive course materials, analysing student learning patterns, and identifying areas where students require additional support. Such systems can enable instructors to modify their teaching strategies dynamically, thereby improving learning outcomes. AI-assisted platforms can also facilitate simulations, virtual laboratories, and real-time feedback mechanisms that enrich the learning process.

Personalised Education. A guiding principle for the future of higher education should be the adoption of personalised education. Students differ widely in their interests, abilities, and career aspirations, yet conventional programmes often treat them as a homogeneous group. Universities should design flexible curricula that allow students to pursue customised learning pathways through interdisciplinary courses, micro-credentials, and project-based learning. Personalised education, supported by data-driven insights, can help students build competencies aligned with their individual goals and societal needs.

Capacity Building of Faculty. Equally critical is the systematic capacity building of faculty. Many teachers possess strong disciplinary knowledge but may not have received adequate training in pedagogy, discussion-based learning, or effective communication. Continuous professional development programmes should therefore be instituted to strengthen multidisciplinary understanding, teaching methodologies, and the ability to facilitate meaningful academic dialogue. Exposure to emerging fields and digital tools will also help faculty remain intellectually vibrant and relevant.

Curriculum Design. Curriculum design must also be guided by a long-term understanding of national and regional challenges. Regulatory bodies such as the UGC, in collaboration with academic institutions, industry, and policy experts, should undertake a systematic exercise to identify the major economic, technological, environmental, and social challenges that India and its regions are likely to face over the next three decades. Insights from such foresight exercises can inform the design of curricula and research agendas, ensuring that university education remains socially relevant and forward-looking. There have been instances where the UGC has resorted to micro-management and suggested model curricula instead of focussing on programme outcomes. Learning outcomes for different programmes could be developed by the UGC in collaboration with Industry and professional bodies.

Measuring Student-Learning Outcomes. AI can further be used to develop sophisticated metrics to measure the value added to students’ knowledge, skills, and competencies during their academic programmes. Instead of relying solely on examination results or placement statistics, universities should assess the growth in critical thinking, problem-solving ability, creativity, and interdisciplinary understanding achieved by students over the course of their studies. Such metrics would provide a more meaningful measure of educational outcomes.

Measuring Contributions to National Development. Similarly, AI-driven analytical systems can be developed to evaluate the contribution of universities to regional and national development. Universities are expected not only to impart education but also to generate research, innovation, and make social impact. AI-based models can analyse indicators such as technology transfer, community engagement, policy contributions, local economic development, and societal outreach to provide a more holistic assessment of institutional performance.

Accreditation and Ranking Systems. Finally, AI can play a crucial role in reforming the way universities are graded and ranked. Current ranking systems often rely on limited indicators that generally lack relevance and may not adequately capture institutional diversity or contextual contributions. AI-enabled systems can process large volumes of academic, research, and societal data to generate more nuanced and objective assessments of universities. Such evidence-based evaluations would encourage institutions to prioritise genuine academic excellence and societal relevance rather than merely chasing numerical rankings.

Taken together, these measures can help transform universities into dynamic centres of learning, innovation, and social progress. By embracing new pedagogies, strengthening faculty capabilities, integrating AI responsibly, and aligning academic programmes with future societal needs, higher education institutions can significantly enhance the quality and relevance of teaching, learning, and research.

Conclusion

The Galgotias episode illustrates that Indian higher education is in dire straits and calls for a surgical transformation, not merely incremental change. The system requires a fundamental overhaul of curricula, pedagogy, and the teaching-learning processes, along with a decisive strengthening of the culture of research. Equally important is the reinforcement of academic integrity and adherence to ethical standards, which form the moral backbone of any credible educational enterprise. Accountability must be embedded not only within universities and their leadership but also across the regulatory and accreditation architecture that governs them. Beyond structural reforms, a range of intangible factors – quantifying learning-outcomes, contribution toward national development, academic ethos, intellectual curiosity, and institutional commitment to excellence – must also be consciously nurtured with the help of AI. Similarly, thoughtful integration of AI can assist in modernising pedagogy, enabling personalised learning, and enhancing research capabilities. India already lags significantly behind the developed world in higher education outcomes, and the nation can ill afford further delay in undertaking bold and comprehensive reforms.