Chapter 13: Dream Merchants of Education-“Fake” Universities and Institutions

Surprisingly, the names of the institutions have remained almost the same year after year. The imposition of a penalty of a paltry sum of rupees one thousand for violation of the provisions of the UGC Act, is not deterrent enough to stop this menace.

The nine institutions which do not now figure in the list are:

It is not known whether these shops had been closed because penal actions were taken against them. There are also reports that when the name of a “fake” institution is included in the UGC list, it closes its shop, but resurfaces under a new name. At least the name of one institution, Bharatiya Siksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, was removed from the list on court orders. It continues to advertise regularly, in several national newspapers, for a number of courses including the B.Ed. degree course. It does so despite the public notices issued by the National Council for Teacher Education warning the students that neither the institution nor its B.Ed., M.Ed., JBT and NTT courses are approved by the Council. It is also flagrantly violating the relevant provision of the UGC Act, 1956 which bars awarding degrees by non-university institutions.

There are also instances of institutions changing names when their names appear in the “fake” universities manage to go Scot free even as they continue to entice the unsuspecting mass of students ever eager to acquire degrees. The Committee of Petitions of the Eighth Lok Sabha went into the question of “fake” universities and recommended that (1) the UGC Act should be amended so that there is a self-working system aimed at “checking the activities of institutions/organisations which tend to exploit while resorting to illegal means” and (2) penalty provision in section 24 of the UGC Act should be enhanced and punishment should include imprisonment as well.

A Task Force set up by the UGC subsequently suggested the amendment of the Act. Accordingly, the University Grants Commission (Amendment Bill), 1995, was introduce in the Rajya Sabha on 2 June 1995. The Bill was referred to the Departmentally Related Committee on Human Resource Development. The report of the Committee was placed before both the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on 16 August 1995.

t sought to impose a minimum punishment of imprisonment of not less than six months which may extend to three years and a fine of not less than Rupees one lakh which might go as high as Rupees ten lakh. The fate of the bill remains unknown. Yet one more Task Force of Experts was set up on July 7, 1998 for a thorough examination of the issue. In April 1999, the Minister for Human Resource Development reportedly informed the Parliamentary Consultative Committee of his Ministry that a special cell had been set up by the UGC to deal with matters relating to the fake universities. It will collect information about them and disseminate for the benefit of students.

It is not only the organisations targeted by the UGC alone that fall within the category of “fake” institutions. The problems posed by the unrecognised institutions have been discussed in some detail in Chapter 5 (Unrecognised Institutions). Institutions which had failed to obtain recognition had been withdrawn but yet continue to offer courses should also be categorized as “fake”. Then, there are also many instances of institutions admitting students first and thereafter seeking approval and recognition of the concerned authorities. If they fail, the students are left in the lurch.

Recognised institutions, especially in the government sector, do not give much publicity in newspapers about their courses and facilities, whereas many others, particularly those in the private sector are very vocal about this. Inclusion of fax numbers, e-mail and website addresses in newspaper advertisements add glamour to them. Many students are carried away by such high voltage publicity. Unfortunately, there is no effective mechanism to counter such disinformation campaigns. The Department of Secondary Education and Higher Education in the Ministry of Human Resource Development had reportedly set up a “malpractice cell” to curb misleading and illegal advertisements by some educational institutions in non-governmental sector to allure gullible students.

The cell would monitor such advertisements in national and regional newspapers and keep a watch on educational institutions in non-governmental and private institutions. The Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) is also reported to have appointed a surveillance panel to monitor fraud in “Distance Education”. The function of the panel is stated to be monitoring deceptive advertisements in national and regional newspapers by keeping a watch on educational activities of non-governmental and private institutions.

Another problem relates to education and training in what is called “alternative medicines”. There are several institutions which regularly advertise in newspapers about their diploma, degree and postgraduate courses. One such institution, The medical College of Alternative Medicine (3 Canal Street, Calcutta-700014) affiliated to the Open University of Alternative Medicine assures in its advertisements that the successful candidates “can practice throughout India, established as per Article 19 (6) Constitution of India”. The advertisement also suggests that their activities are approved by the Government of West Bengal. The Government however, had cautioned the public not to fall prey to such allurements.

The Central Council of Indian Medicine which is the regulatory authority in respect of Indian systems of Medicine (see also Chapter 7) had also warned against undergoing treatment by unqualified and unregistered practitioners of the so-called “Alternative Medicine are not recognised systems of medicine by the Central Council of Indian Medicine” the awards in these subjects have no validity. It also added that three institutions, viz., the Medical College of Alternative Medicine mentioned above, New Delhi Medical Institute of Electropathy and Healthcare and Medicare are not recognised by the Council.

While on the subject of “fake” educational institutions, it is also necessary to refer to the “fake” degree racket. In this affair, both the providers and the recipients of fake degrees are quality. Newspapers frequently come out with the startling news of busting of such rackets. In particular, the recent unearthing of fake degree scandals deserves mention because of the involvement of officials of universities including even vice-chancellors. In Bihar, three universities L.N. Mithila (Darbhnga), B.N. Mandal Magadh (Madhapur) and Vinoba Bhave (Hazaribagh) Universities are reportedly involved in B.Ed. degree scam.

A Minister and s senior bureaucrat are reportedly involved in the B.N. Mandal Magadh University fake degree racket that took place between 1987 and 1997. The buyers of fake degrees were mainly form Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Gujarat. The price of each certificate was between Rs.50.000 to Rs. one lakh. The officiating Registrar and the Controller of Examinations and Dean of Faculty of Engineering and Technology of the Nagpur University were arrested for their alleged involvement in bogus degrees and marks sheet scam.

The UGC and other regulatory authorities should explore the feasibility of devising some mechanism with the cooperation of Advertisement Standards Council of India (ASCI), the Indian Newspapers Society and the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to curb the menace of misleading advertisements. The Common Cause, and organisation of consumer activists (5 Institutional Area, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070) had filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court seeking direction to the Government of India to initiate urgent steps against “fake” universities and inadequately equipped educational institutions. The Supreme Court on January 21, 2000 sought the response of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and had also issued notices to the UGC, AICTE and MCI.

However, much more important is the availability of the particulars of institutions and courses approved by regulatory authorities concerned. All such data could be conveniently put on their websites for wider accessibility. This issue had already been discussed in Prologue and Chapter 7 (Regulatory Authorities).