IIT: Grievance redress system in ‘shambles’, governance needs ‘urgent reform’

By Brijesh Rai

The Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), often celebrated as temples of excellence in science and engineering, are grappling with a serious governance crisis. Beneath the academic success lies a dysfunctional grievance redressal mechanism and opaque governance at the top levels.

This undermines the very ethos of these premier institutions. While this article focuses on IITs, the issues resonate across India’s higher education system.

IIT Act: Governance structure

The governance framework of IITs is outlined in the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961. The two apex authorities — the IIT Council and the Visitor (the President of India) — are entrusted with oversight and key appointments. Specifically, the act empowers the Visitor to:

• Appoint one or more persons to review the work and progress of an institute, inquire into its affairs, and issue directives based on the findings.
• Appoint the chairpersons of the Board of Governors (BoG) and approve the selection of IIT directors.

The IIT Council, chaired by the union minister of education, nominates four members to each BoG and plays a pivotal role in the appointment of directors. These provisions theoretically provide an institutional mechanism for transparency and good governance. However, systemic flaws have rendered these mechanisms ineffective.

IIT directors, BoG members: ‘Politicised’ appointments

Governance at IITs took a questionable turn as early as 1962 during the first meeting of the IIT Council. Resolutions were passed to delegate the council’s powers to its chairman, effectively consolidating authority in the hands of the union minister of education.

This delegation lacked explicit authorisation in the parent Act and contravened established principles of administrative law, which do not permit sub-delegation unless explicitly provided for.

The result has been decades of politically influenced appointments. For instance, the four BoG members nominated by the education minister are selected without any documented search process. A Right to Information (RTI) query revealed that there are no established guidelines for these nominations.

Similarly, the BoG chairpersons, often industrial magnates, rarely have the bandwidth to engage deeply with institutional governance.

The selection process for IIT directors is equally concerning. A four-member committee — comprising the education minister, a member nominated by the minister, the concerned IIT’s BoG chairperson, and the chairperson of the University Grants Commission (UGC) — is tasked with these appointments. The education minister effectively controls three out of four voices, if not all, raising questions about meritocracy versus political affiliation in these critical decisions.

Grievance redress at IITs ‘in shambles’

The grievance redressal system, which should be the backbone of institutional accountability, is in shambles. The IIT Act designates the Visitor as the appellate authority for grievances. However, in a 2009 IIT Council meeting, it was decided that a standing committee would address grievances.

This committee, intended to resolve complaints within 30 days, took nine years to be constituted. Even then, its functionality remains questionable; cases referred years ago are yet to see resolution.

For instance, one representation submitted to this committee seven years ago is still pending. The committee’s dysfunctionality leaves complainants at the mercy of the same authorities they are complaining against.

Complaints addressed to the chairman of the IIT Council are often forwarded back to the respective IITs, where they are summarily dismissed. Without an independent appellate mechanism, justice is not only delayed but outright denied.

Effect on whistleblowers

The case of IIT Kharagpur highlights a broader malaise. Members of the institute’s teachers’ association raised concerns against the administration to the ministry of education. Instead of an impartial inquiry by the appellate authorities, the complainants faced retaliation from the accused authorities themselves. This blatant violation of natural justice — where the accused acts as the judge — creates a chilling effect on potential whistleblowers.

Rather than fostering an environment where individuals can fearlessly report malpractices, the system penalises them, perpetuating a culture of silence. This is antithetical to the principles of institutional accountability and democratic governance.

Need for reform

The governance crisis in IITs calls for urgent reforms, such as:

Transparent appointments

• Mandate public, merit-based processes for nominating BoG members and appointing Directors.
• Limit the Education Minister’s overarching influence to ensure impartiality.

Functional grievance redressal mechanism

• Establish an independent appellate body with clear timelines for resolving complaints.
• Ensure complainants are protected from retaliation through robust whistleblower policies.

Strengthening the IIT Council

• Revoke the blanket delegation of powers to the Chairman.
• Introduce checks and balances to prevent politicization of the Council’s decisions.

Empowering the Visitor

Equip the Visitor’s office with adequate resources and authority to oversee inquiries and enforce directives effectively.

A path forward

The IITs are at a crossroads. While they continue to excel academically, their governance and grievance redressal mechanisms are failing. The onus lies on the Visitor, the IIT Council, and the broader academic fraternity to address these systemic flaws. Without immediate intervention, the crisis will not only erode trust in these institutions but also set a dangerous precedent for governance in India’s higher education system. The time to act is now, to ensure that IITs remain not just centers of academic excellence but also bastions of good governance.

Dr. Brijesh Rai is a former faculty member of IIT Guwahati. He has spent close to 20 years in IIT system, as student and faculty.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this opinion piece are personal and do not reflect the stance of Careers360.