Recent reports of fraudulent degree rackets, including those emerging from Rajasthan and Mumbai, once again draw attention to a persistent weakness in India’s higher education ecosystem. While such incidents are often perceived as isolated cases of malpractice, a closer examination suggests that they are manifestations of deeper structural deficiencies ones that have already been identified in official audit findings but remain insufficiently addressed.
Having been closely associated with the audit examination of such irregularities at the time, the patterns now resurfacing in different contexts appear both familiar and instructive. An instructive case in this regard is reflected in the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) Report No. 4, 2019 (Para 1.3.3) concerning the Institute of Distance and Open Learning (IDOL), Gauhati University. The audit observed that during the period 2010–2017, the institution offered 21 courses without approval from the relevant statutory bodies, despite having recognition for only eight specified programmes. Approximately 73,912 students were enrolled in these unapproved courses, with fees amounting to ₹39.06 crore collected over the period. Crucially, it was also noted that degrees awarded under such unapproved programmes were not valid for employment in Central Government services, thereby directly affecting the employability and future prospects of the students concerned.
What makes the findings particularly significant is not merely the scale of deviation, but the nature of institutional conduct. The audit records indicate that affidavits were periodically submitted to regulatory authorities assuring compliance with prescribed norms, including a commitment not to introduce new programmes without prior approval. However, in practice, courses continued to be offered in anticipation of approval, without obtaining the necessary clearances. This divergence between formal assurance and operational reality points to a governance gap that extends beyond individual lapses.
The seriousness of these irregularities led to the constitution of an independent inquiry under the Justice Aftab Hussain Saikia Commission, mandated to examine the continuation of unapproved courses and recommend corrective measures. The very need for such an inquiry underscores that the issue was not episodic but sustained over multiple academic cycles, affecting a large cohort of students and raising broader questions regarding oversight and accountability within higher education institutions.
When viewed in the context of current developments, including recent cases of fraudulent degrees, a clear pattern emerges. The persistence of such instances, despite existing regulatory frameworks, suggests that the challenge lies not in the absence of policy but in its execution architecture. Regulatory bodies, including the University Grants Commission, have laid down clear guidelines regarding recognition, disclosure, and compliance. Yet, the recurrence of such cases indicates that these measures, while necessary, are not sufficient in themselves to prevent systemic failure.
A key factor underlying this gap is the fragmented nature of verification mechanisms. At present, information relating to institutional recognition, course approvals, and student enrolment is dispersed across multiple platforms and authorities. Students are often required to rely on incomplete or difficult-to-access information when making admission decisions. Verification, where it occurs, is frequently retrospective triggered by complaints or audits rather than embedded within the admission process itself.
It is important to note that India already possesses several foundational systems capable of supporting a more robust framework. Student-level identifiers exist in specific domains, such as distance education. School-level databases, such as UDISE, capture granular information on students at earlier stages of education. Regulatory bodies maintain lists of recognized institutions and approved programmes. However, these systems operate largely in isolation, without seamless interoperability. As a result, the absence of a unified, continuous academic identity and verification framework creates gaps that can be exploited, often to the detriment of students.
From a governance and audit perspective, the implications are clear. The issue is not one of regulatory insufficiency but of systemic fragmentation. Strengthening compliance mechanisms alone may address individual violations, but it does not eliminate the structural conditions that enable such violations to occur. What is required is a shift toward integration linking existing databases, enabling real-time verification, and embedding validation mechanisms at the point of admission.
Such an approach would entail the development of a unified academic identity framework that tracks a student’s educational trajectory from school through higher education, supported by a centralized verification interface accessible to students, institutions, employers, and regulators. Equally important is the need for interoperable data systems that allow seamless exchange of information across stakeholders, coupled with time-bound enforcement mechanisms to ensure accountability.
Ultimately, the issue of fake or unrecognized degrees is not merely a question of regulatory breach; it is a question of trust. Students and their families invest significant time, effort, and resources in education with the expectation that the qualifications obtained will be valid and recognized. When this expectation is not met, the consequences extend beyond individual loss to affect the credibility of the education system as a whole.
The lessons from audit findings and subsequent inquiries are therefore both clear and compelling. Preventing such occurrences in the future will require moving beyond reactive enforcement toward proactive system design where verification is inherent, transparency is real-time, and institutional accountability is built into the architecture itself.
In this context, the central policy question is not whether regulations exist, but whether the system is designed in a manner that makes non-compliance difficult to sustain. Addressing this question effectively will be critical to safeguarding the interests of India’s youth and preserving the integrity of its higher education framework.
.jpeg)
.jpeg)