The planning to get a high grade for Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation (KLEF) in Guntur district began almost 10 days before the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) informed the institute about the panel that was going to visit it. According to investigators, the heads of the private university tried to get favourably inclined people on the inspection panel.
The arrest of members from a NAAC peer inspection panel by the CBI has again raised questions about the integrity of India’s accreditation system. Faculty members, drawn from different parts of the country, were tasked with assessing KLEF’s standards. Instead, according to the investigation, inspectors came together to extort bribes, offering inflated ratings in exchange for payments.
The CBI arrested 10 individuals, including the chairman of the NAAC inspection committee and six members — one of whom is a JNU professor — on bribery charges. The agency’s FIR details allegations of wrongdoing. The inspection team allegedly demanded Rs 1.8 crore for accreditation. After negotiations with the JNU professor, officials of KLEF at Vaddeswaram agreed to revise the bribes. The agreed payments included Rs 3 lakh each for the inspection team members, Rs 10 lakh for the committee chairman, and laptops as part of the bribe. CBI search operations are on in many states. Interestingly, twice before, KLEF was awarded an A++ grade, the highest that institutes like the Indian Institute of Science hold.
The planning to get the top grade started on Jan 18 for the inspection that was slated for Jan 29 to 31 for the third assessment cycle for 2024-2029. “KLEF V-C G P Saradhi Varma approached NAAC officials to explore ways and means for inclusion of known members in the formation of the NAAC team,” CBI sources said. He, in fact, requested one dean of Bangalore University, M Hanumanthappa, to be a part of the team, but he said he could not do so as one member from Karnataka was already on the panel. He, however, revealed the names of all the panel members before they were officially communicated to the institute by NAAC, which raises doubts about how he accessed the information.
NAAC inspectors are selected through a computer-generated process, ensuring impartiality. But in this case, it is believed “the list was re-generated”, a practice that has come under scrutiny before. Several screening filters are in place — inspectors are not assigned to institutions within their home state, no individual is selected for more than six inspections in a year, and each panel includes experts from the relevant academic disciplines to ensure assessments align with the institute’s specific programmes.
Professor Anil Sahasrabudhe, chairman of NAAC’s executive committee, said several measures were taken in the past year to improve the assessment system after TOI’s series of reports on “corruption” in the accreditation process. But even with safeguards, vulnerabilities persist. Sources familiar with the system describe a “deep rot” within. Despite longstanding calls for reform — including those outlined in the S Radhakrishnan Committee report — efforts to overhaul the accreditation process remain incomplete. Kannabiran said the current system will soon be phased out, with only 300-odd pending applications being assessed under the old framework.
The arrest of members from a NAAC peer inspection panel by the CBI has again raised questions about the integrity of India’s accreditation system. Faculty members, drawn from different parts of the country, were tasked with assessing KLEF’s standards. Instead, according to the investigation, inspectors came together to extort bribes, offering inflated ratings in exchange for payments.
The CBI arrested 10 individuals, including the chairman of the NAAC inspection committee and six members — one of whom is a JNU professor — on bribery charges. The agency’s FIR details allegations of wrongdoing. The inspection team allegedly demanded Rs 1.8 crore for accreditation. After negotiations with the JNU professor, officials of KLEF at Vaddeswaram agreed to revise the bribes. The agreed payments included Rs 3 lakh each for the inspection team members, Rs 10 lakh for the committee chairman, and laptops as part of the bribe. CBI search operations are on in many states. Interestingly, twice before, KLEF was awarded an A++ grade, the highest that institutes like the Indian Institute of Science hold.
The planning to get the top grade started on Jan 18 for the inspection that was slated for Jan 29 to 31 for the third assessment cycle for 2024-2029. “KLEF V-C G P Saradhi Varma approached NAAC officials to explore ways and means for inclusion of known members in the formation of the NAAC team,” CBI sources said. He, in fact, requested one dean of Bangalore University, M Hanumanthappa, to be a part of the team, but he said he could not do so as one member from Karnataka was already on the panel. He, however, revealed the names of all the panel members before they were officially communicated to the institute by NAAC, which raises doubts about how he accessed the information.
NAAC inspectors are selected through a computer-generated process, ensuring impartiality. But in this case, it is believed “the list was re-generated”, a practice that has come under scrutiny before. Several screening filters are in place — inspectors are not assigned to institutions within their home state, no individual is selected for more than six inspections in a year, and each panel includes experts from the relevant academic disciplines to ensure assessments align with the institute’s specific programmes.
Professor Anil Sahasrabudhe, chairman of NAAC’s executive committee, said several measures were taken in the past year to improve the assessment system after TOI’s series of reports on “corruption” in the accreditation process. But even with safeguards, vulnerabilities persist. Sources familiar with the system describe a “deep rot” within. Despite longstanding calls for reform — including those outlined in the S Radhakrishnan Committee report — efforts to overhaul the accreditation process remain incomplete. Kannabiran said the current system will soon be phased out, with only 300-odd pending applications being assessed under the old framework.
