NEP 2020 and Silent Erosion of Minority Rights
The National Education Policy 2020 represents a quiet and comprehensive restructuring of Higher Education that never once acknowledges the existence of constitutional Minority Rights
India’s National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 is often praised as visionary, transformative and future-ready. But for minority-run educational institutions, it represents something far more unsettling: A quiet and comprehensive restructuring of higher education that never once acknowledges the existence of constitutional minority rights.
This absence is not a small omission. It is the policy’s defining flaw. And it could allow governments and universities to enforce the NEP provisions that directly collide with the rights guaranteed under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution — the very pillars that safeguard India’s educational pluralism.
This critique is not about rejecting reform. It is about insisting that educational modernisation cannot come at the cost of constitutional protections. Minority institutions are not “special privileges”; they are a historical and democratic guarantee against cultural assimilation. NEP 2020 appears oblivious to this.
The Constitutional Framework NEP Ignores
Article 30(1) gives minorities two inviolable rights: The right to establish institutions of their choice, and the right to administer them. The Supreme Court, through landmark judgments such as TMA Pai (2002), Inamdar (2005), St. Stephen’s (1992), St. Xavier’s (1974) and Mother Provincial (1970), has consistently reaffirmed that minority institutions enjoy autonomy in admissions, staffing, internal administration and governance structures. Regulation is permissible, but only when it is reasonable and never when it destroys the minority character of an institution.
The NEP 2020 does not mention any of this — not once. The result is a policy designed for uniformity that ends up threatening the very diversity the Constitution seeks to protect.
Phasing Out Affiliation — A Structural Threat
The NEP mandates that the existing system of affiliated colleges must be phased out within fifteen years and replaced by institutions that are either autonomous degree-granting bodies or constituent colleges of universities. This may appear modern and efficient. But for minority institutions, it is potentially unconstitutional.
A minority college cannot be forced into any governance structure it does not consent to. Turning it into a constituent college effectively transfers management to the university, exactly the kind of takeover the Supreme Court has prohibited. Even compelling a college to become “autonomous” without its consent alters its governance framework and infringes on its right to administer itself. Restructuring affiliation is acceptable; compulsory restructuring is not.
University “Mentoring” as Cover for Control
The NEP instructs universities to “mentor” colleges during their transition. As harmless as this sounds, experience shows that mentoring can easily evolve into supervision — and eventually into interference. This can seep into staff recruitment processes, student admissions, internal disciplinary systems and institutional policies.
Minority institutions are constitutionally protected from such administrative intrusion. Any oversight that extends beyond academic standards is impermissible.
Forced Mergers into Clusters and Mega-Universities
The NEP’s vision of large multidisciplinary universities and higher-education clusters has an appealing surface logic: collaboration, efficiency, and economies of scale. But clustering often entails shared governance bodies, integrated academic councils and pooled financial systems.
For minority institutions, this dilutes identity, autonomy and the ability to maintain a distinct ethos — all of which are constitutionally protected.
TMA Pai makes it clear: No minority institution can be compelled to merge or be absorbed into a larger entity.
Imposing Uniform Board of Governors
Another major structural shift in the NEP 2020 is the push for a uniform governance model, which includes a common Board of Governors as the key decision-making authority.
Minority institutions, however, already possess legitimate, constitutionally protected management structures. Forcing them to adopt an external governance body amounts to replacing their management and undermining the autonomy guaranteed by Article 30.
A one-size-fits-all governance model is incompatible with the constitutional diversity of India’s educational landscape.
Centralised Regulation Under HECI
The proposed Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) introduces sweeping centralisation of academic, financial and regulatory authority.
While standard-setting is not inherently problematic, minority institutions cannot be subjected to rules that dilute their autonomy in admissions, staffing and internal administration.
The fear is not of regulation per se, but of uniformity that leaves no space for constitutional exceptions. HECI, as envisioned by NEP, risks erasing autonomy through sheer national standardisation.
Uniform Admissions Through Common National Tests
The NEP’s reliance on National Testing Agency (NTA) examinations and standardised admission procedures raises additional concerns.
Minority institutions retain the right to adopt their own admission processes, including interviews, internal assessments and reservations for members of their community.
Enforcing uniform national entrance systems would dilute these rights and contradict legal precedents like St. Stephen’s, which explicitly affirm minority institutions’ autonomy in admission practices.
Overregulation of Facilities, Finances and Curriculum
NEP’s promise of transparency and standardisation often translates, in practice, into heavy-handed administrative control. Minority institutions cannot have their fee structures dictated beyond the test of reasonableness. Nor can their internal policies be micromanaged by state authorities.
Similarly, standardised curricula, rigid credit frameworks and uniform modular systems may erode their ability to offer programs that reflect their cultural, linguistic or community-specific identity.
Autonomy is not ornamental or symbolic; it is the foundational condition under which minority institutions were constituted.
The NEP's Most Telling Omission
The greatest danger in the NEP 2020 is not any single provision but the fact that the entire document contains no acknowledgement of minority educational rights.
This silence opens the door to two forms of overreach: state governments may implement NEP reforms without granting exemptions for minority institutions, and universities may interpret the policy as mandating uniformity, thereby pressuring institutions into structural changes that violate the Constitution.
A national education policy that ignores minority rights becomes a policy built on constitutional incompleteness.
What Must Be Done Now
Any state legislation implementing NEP — including Goa’s proposed Public Universities Bill 2025 — must contain explicit exemptions for minority institutions. It must incorporate non-derogation clauses to ensure that NEP reforms cannot override constitutional protections. Participation in restructuring, mergers or governance changes must be strictly consent-based. And the internal management structures of minority institutions must be fully protected.
Without such safeguards, NEP-based reforms risk becoming a project of structural assimilation, dressed up as educational modernisation.
Minority education is not a concession. It is a constitutional guarantee. The NEP 2020 must not be allowed to override it through silence, uniformity or administrative force.
[The writer, Ranjan Solomon, is a Political Commentator]
Follow ummid.com WhatsApp Channel for all the latest updates.
Select Language to Translate in Urdu, Hindi, Marathi or Arabic
