NAAC accreditation remains valid for 5 years, during which institutions must demonstrate continuous improvement. A high NAAC score unlocks several benefits, including greater autonomy, the flexibility to introduce new courses and departments, and the ability to offer online programmes without University Grants Commission (UGC) approval.
Invest in Trusted Journalism
Your support helps us deliver unbiased, on-the-ground reporting, in-depth interviews and insightful opinions that matter.
Also, NAAC accreditation creates credibility among students and parents.
However, there have always been concerns over the way many institutions get good NAAC ratings.
“This case has come to light, which is why those involved in the malpractices have been arrested. We have been raising concerns about these NAAC practices for some time now, and we believe many similar cases, particularly in private universities, have occurred in the past,” said Rajesh Jha, a faculty member at Delhi University and former executive council member of the varsity.
Anil D. Sahasrabudhe, Chairman of the Executive Committee of NAAC, called the incident “unfortunate” and said that it has come as a shock.
Speaking to ThePrint, he said that NAAC has introduced several initiatives over the past year to create a robust system with checks and balances aimed at closing any potential loopholes.
“For instance, NAAC has revised the grading process for various institutions after noticing an extraordinary jump in grades between two cycles, and we carefully reviewed such cases,” he said.
Sahasrabudhe admitted that the existing selection process for the inspection committees raises serious concerns about potential foul play.
“The teams are randomly chosen using a computerised method from a pool of over 5,000 experts across various disciplines. The system selects two experts from each discipline, and only one is ultimately chosen for the final team. It’s surprising that individuals with similar backgrounds ended up on the same team,” he explained, adding, “We fully support the inquiry to uncover the truth.”
Also read: How Rajasthan’s school mergers threaten the future of 1st-generation learners, especially girls
The case
The CBI has registered a case and arrested 10 individuals in connection with an alleged bribery scandal involving NAAC inspection team members. The accused are suspected of accepting bribes—including cash, gold, mobile phones, and laptops—from officials of the Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation (KLEF) in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, in exchange for favourable ratings for KLEF Deemed to Be University.
According to the CBI statement, searches were conducted at 20 locations across India at Chennai, Bengaluru, Vijaywada, Palamu, Sambalpur, Bhopal, Bilaspur, Gautam Buddha Nagar and New Delhi. An amount of around Rs 37 lakh cash, 6 Lenovo laptops, one iPhone 16 Pro, etc, and other incriminating articles were recovered.
According to the FIR filed by the CBI, a meeting took place between officials from the KLEF and Rajeev Sijariya, JNU professor and member of the NAAC inspection committee, for a favourable rating.
Sijariya initially demanded Rs 1.80 crore to manage the entire inspection team. After negotiations, the amount was reduced to Rs 3 lakh per team member and Rs 10 lakh for Sijariya himself, which was handed over to him at his Delhi residence on 26 January 2025. During this meeting, he presented a favourable draft inspection report.
The FIR further revealed that bribe payments were delivered in envelopes to the NAAC inspection team, with Sijariya insisting that 75 percent of his share be paid in gold. Despite this, he continued to demand an additional Rs 60 lakh. By 31 January, 2025, a settlement was reached, agreeing to pay him Rs 15 lakh on top of the Rs 10 lakh already given, along with Rs 3 lakh for each team member, plus laptops and mobile phones. The final payments were made on 1 February, 2025, with the expectation of securing an A++ NAAC grading for KLEF. The investigation into this bribery scheme is ongoing.
JNU Monday suspended Sijariya over his alleged involvement in the bribery case.
Not NAAC’s first brush with controversy
In February 2023, former NAAC chairperson Bhushan Patwardhan alleged that vested interests were manipulating the accreditation process, leading to the awarding of questionable grades to certain institutions. He claimed that some higher education institutions were securing high ratings through “unfair means”.
Patwardhan commissioned an inquiry committee which uncovered serious irregularities in NAAC’s accreditation process. The committee found that the agency’s IT system had been “compromised”, and assessors were being allocated “arbitrarily”, creating potential conflicts of interest. The report also noted that nearly 70 percent of the 4,000 assessors had never had the chance to conduct site visits, while others had visited multiple times. Additionally, individuals without proper authority had full access to the NAAC’s internal systems.
Patwardhan wrote to the UGC expressing his intention to resign, prompting the UGC to appoint former All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) chairperson Anil Sahasrabudhe as his replacement. Patwardhan clarified that his resignation was being misinterpreted and, in March 2023, he formally resigned, citing self-respect and the need to “safeguard the sanctity” of the NAAC.
Reforms being initiated but a long way to go
Sahasrabudhe said that in line with the recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Committee’s report submitted last year, the practice of physical data verification by expert panels will soon be phased out.
“With the newly reformed accreditation process, we are confident that such loopholes will be effectively addressed,” Sahasrabudhe told ThePrint.
He said that in all applications that NAAC has received post July 2024, the new system will eliminate physical verification.
Under the existing process, an institution applies for assessment and submits a Self-Study Report detailing quantitative and qualitative data. This data is then validated by NAAC expert teams, followed by on-site evaluations from peer assessors drawn from universities across India. This process is valid only for the applications received till June last year.
In November 2022, the Union Ministry of Education had established a four-member panel, led by K. Radhakrishnan, Chairperson of the Board of Governors at IIT Kanpur, to propose measures for strengthening the assessment and accreditation of higher education institutions (HEIs) in the country.
The panel’s mandate was to recommend ways to streamline the assessment and accreditation processes followed by various agencies under the ministry—including NAAC, National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), National Board of Accreditation (NBA), and AICTE. Among its key recommendations was reducing the reliance on physical visits by expert panels for data validation, suggesting a shift to digital methods using scientific approaches.
The committee recommended “Binary Accreditation” (either accredited or not accredited) rather than grades, to encourage all the institutions to get on-boarded to the accreditation process.
The Radhakrishnan panel recommended a ‘One Nation One Data Platform’ to ensure data integrity and transparency.
This platform would capture comprehensive data from HEIs for approval, accreditation, and ranking, with built-in cross-checking to verify authenticity.
To enhance data reliability, “stakeholder validation” will be integrated into the accreditation and ranking processes. The system will be data-driven, with minimal on-site visits, but heavy penalties for false submissions. It will also offer customised rankings based on stakeholders like industry, funding agencies, and students.
Although the UGC has issued multiple circulars urging institutions to mandatorily undergo NAAC assessment, the process remains largely voluntary. The National Education Policy (2020) has set an ambitious goal of ensuring all higher education institutions achieve the highest level of accreditation within the next 15 years.
(Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri)
Also read: How UGC’s new rating system for higher institutions sets stage for flashpoint with non-NDA states
