Pranav Mittal*

Source : Blackbox. AI

The growing demand for industry-relevant skills among India’s youth has led to the emergence of skill universities, which focus on imparting sector-specific skills and practical exposure. To regulate such institutions, the Maharashtra Private Skill Universities Act, 2024 was recently enacted as a framework distinct from that governing private universities. This article argues for integrating private skill universities within the broader higher education framework governing private universities in Maharashtra, aligning their regulation with existing national standards established by the National Skills Qualifications Framework and the National Council for Vocational Education and Training.

 The article critically examines the legislative and functional overlap between private universities and private skill universities, showing how their objectives, course curricula, and emphasis on industry collaboration converge. It further highlights how the National Education Policy’s focus on fostering industry partnerships blurs any meaningful distinction between these two categories of universities.

Building on this, the article identifies critical gaps in the Act, particularly the absence of mandatory accreditation, which undermines uniform academic standards and risks the proliferation of substandard institutions. Moreover, it creates a parallel regulatory regime, which leads to regulatory inefficiency and the lack of proper implementation. To address these issues, the article advocates for a unified regulatory approach that ensures alignment with national frameworks.

Introduction

Around 12 million youth enter the labour force every year in India, and empowering them with industry-relevant skills remains a major challenge. This challenge is further exacerbated in the present context of increasing adoption of technology and changing industry requirements. To deal with this challenge, a new model of ‘skill universities’ was introduced to the higher education landscape. They specialise in skill formation with a focus on practical training. Further, they provide sector-specific courses, with curricula, skill assessments, and apprenticeships aligned to in-demand job roles.

To regulate such self-funded skill universities, the Maharashtra Legislature recently enacted the Maharashtra Private Skill Universities Act, 2024 (‘the Act’), subsequent to a general law regulating private universities. The Act aims to create a unified framework for regulating private ‘skill’ universities, repealing separate, identical Acts (see here, here, here, and here). This can be gathered from the Act’s Statement of Objects and Reasons. However, the Act poses serious risks to Maharashtra’s higher education system, including the erosion of academic standards and quality concerns.

Through this article, I argue that private skill universities do not constitute a distinct category from private universities in Maharashtra, and they should therefore fall under the same regulatory framework, to maintain uniform academic standards. I proceed by, first, arguing that despite the private skill universities’ emphasis on industry-relevant skills, their legislative mandates converge with each other. Secondly, I demonstrate the absence of any distinction between private universities and private skill universities. My analysis of the nudge by the National Education Policy (‘NEP’) to private universities to move towards industry-relevant skills further indicates this. Thirdly, I show that the Act allows for the proliferation of substandard universities. Finally, I propose the integration of private skill universities within the already existing national framework established by the National Council for Vocational Education and Training (‘NCVET’) and the National Skills Qualifications Framework (‘NSQF’).

The Absence Of Legislative Distinction In The Mandates Of Private Skill Universities And Skill Universities

In this section, I explore the convergence in the legislative objectives of Private Skill Universities with that of Private Universities in Maharashtra.

The Draft Bill on the National Skill Universities, 2015 defines the role of skill universities as developing qualified youth with professional competencies to meet the skilled employment needs of both the country and the world. To achieve this, skill universities constantly engage with the professional world to create industry-relevant curricula and provide practical exposure. As per §§ 9(1)(c) & 9(1)(j) of the Act, these universities emphasise entrepreneurial and innovative skills through flexible, credit-based courses.

This is contrasted with other private universities, which focus on research in higher and technical education [§§ 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) & 9(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Private Universities Act]. The mandate of skill universities can be viewed as an extension of private universities. They place an added focus on industry-relevant skills that bridge the gap between academic education and the professional world. However, vocational education and training (‘VET’) institutes exist on a different plane altogether, as they focus on hands-on skills like carpentry. This is in contrast with skill universities that emphasise in-depth subject knowledge and industry-relevant practical exposure.

The objectives of both private skill universities and ‘private universities’ are outlined in §9 of their respective Acts. Except for the Private Skill Universities Act’s focus on ‘skill proficiency and competency’, the other objectives are not exclusive to such universities. Further, the measures through which private skill universities aim to achieve this are very similar to those of private universities. On a parallel reading, it is clear that both legislations envisage universities designed to foster innovation and entrepreneurship. This is achieved through state-of-the-art facilities, technological integration, and courses following a credit-based, continuous evaluation model. Both focus on providing courses that serve the needs of ‘new and emerging areas’ with high employment potentiality, by collaborating with other institutions and industry leaders. Therefore, the legislative intent behind the distinction is unclear, due to the convergence of the objectives of the Universities that the two legislations seek to regulate.      

The Gaps In Industry Collaboration

               An analysis of the existing private skill universities in Maharashtra indicates that there is little distinction in their course offerings and curricula, compared to other private universities. It has been argued that skill universities collaborate on a deeper level with industry, by implementing a ‘Connected Curriculum’. In contrast, other universities only maintain a superficial collaboration limited to seminars and workshops. However, the experience with skill universities in Maharashtra shows that such collaboration is quite limited even in the case of private skill universities. They often struggle to meaningfully partner with industry leaders for the development of course outlines and curricula. Further, the Universal SkillTech University and the Symbiosis Skills and Professional University (‘SSPU’) through their School of Science, Engineering, and Technology Skills, and Centres of Excellence respectively, are increasingly stressing upon applied research. This is similar to private universities’ supposed focus on ‘research and development’. While these universities are classified as skill universities de jure, their course offerings are very similar to other private universities.

It may be argued that the Act was brought to initiate such a move towards deeper collaboration. However, an analysis of the legislation indicates that it lacks any substantive incentives to facilitate meaningful industry collaboration. The Act merely mentions such collaboration as one of the objects of such Universities [§9(1)(w)], without addressing the absence of underlying mechanisms to facilitate it. Further, the guidelines issued by the NCVET address such collaboration in a much better manner. This is facilitated by the creation of appropriate sector-specific councils for vocational education  [3.3.5 F.]. The Act does not align itself to this already existing framework, further inhibiting its ability to meaningfully foster industry collaboration.

Blurring Boundaries: The Nudge By The National Education Policy

In this section, I argue that the New Education Policy further erases any difference between Private Skill Universities and Private Universities by encouraging Private Universities to adopt features that are central to the concept of Private Skill Universities.

The distinction between private universities and private skill universities is further getting blurred due to the recent nudge to private universities to incorporate additional features. These features often overlap with features that are fundamental to private skill universities. The NEP encourages higher educational institutions to prepare future professionals by including research and innovation in its curriculum [¶¶ 20.1 & 21. 5]. This approach is similar to private skill universities’ emphasis on vocational skill development and entrepreneurship [§§ 9(k), 9(c), 9(f) & 9(h) of the Act].

The use of Information Communication Technology (‘ICT’) to support distance learning and lifelong education [§§ 9(n), 9(q) & 9 (z) of the Act] mirrors the NEP’s push for technological integration in continuous adult education [¶¶ 23.3 & 21.10]. Similarly, the emphasis on collaborative research and partnership with other institutions [§§ 9 (u), 9 & 9 (z) of the Act] aligns with the NEP’s call for collaboration among higher education institutions [¶ 12.8]. 

There is no significant difference between private universities and private skill universities. Additionally, there is no causal connection between this distinction and the goal of creating a unified framework to establish and regulate private skill universities in Maharashtra. As a result, the Act falls short of its intended objective.

Regulatory Gaps And The Need For Accreditation Standards

In this section, I explore the basis for differentiating between the categories of skill universities and private skill universities. I show that the distinction is arbitrary.    

The Private Skill Universities Act outlines a detailed process for setting up private skill universities by a sponsoring body. It begins with an application and a Detailed Project Report proposing the university’s establishment [§3]. The government then forms a Scrutiny Committee to evaluate the proposal and submit a report [§4]. If approved, a Letter of Intent is issued, specifying compliance requirements to be fulfilled within one year [§§5(1) & 5(2)]. A Verification Committee subsequently reviews compliance within a month of inspection [§5(4)]. Upon satisfaction, the government amends the Schedule through legislation [§6] and conducts a final Secretary-level verification [§7(1)]. A Gazette notification then formalizes the university’s operational status [§§7(2) & 7(3)].

This process closely mirrors that of private universities, with one key difference. Unlike private universities, which are required to obtain accreditation from the National Assessment and Accreditation Council or the National Board of Accreditation within five years of establishment under §6(6), private skill universities are not subject to this requirement. This lack of a mandatory accreditation timeline leads to an absence of uniform accreditation for private skill universities. It compromises the quality and credibility of the higher education ecosystem in Maharashtra.    

Skill universities in Maharashtra are still in their early stages, with the first such university established in 2017. Further, they are responsible for bridging the gap between academic learning and professional skills. With the absence of mandatory accreditation, the Act removes the requirement of transparency and accountability. It would allow the operation of poor institutional practices, including the absence of proper governance processes and student support programmes. It would translate into several consequences for the university, including poorly qualified faculty and inadequate support for job placement. It therefore allows substandard institutions to operate under the guise of skill universities. This could lead to the proliferation of inferior universities across Maharashtra, damaging the higher education sector and the country’s skill education ecosystem. Thus, there is no reason that private skill universities should not be subject to this requirement, particularly if the State seeks to step its regulatory foot in education.

Integration Of Private Skill Universities Within The National Framework

In this section, I use the absence of differentiation between private universities and private skill universities to propose a paradigm for the integration of Private Skill Universities within the national framework.

The preceding discussion on the absence of any real distinction and its consequences indicates that private skill universities must be treated as an extension of private universities. For this purpose, modifications must be made in the parent Act to address the unique needs of private skill universities. This must happen in tandem with national policies and guidelines framed by the NCVET to ensure centre-state coordination.

It is crucial to ensure such centre-state coordination, due to the risk of creating parallel regulatory regimes. The absence of such coordination leads to non-compliance and inefficient implementation, which would have disastrous consequences for the higher education ecosystem in Maharashtra. One such instance is related to the Act’s nudge towards deeper collaboration with industry through state-of-the-art centres in §9(1)(zj). Such centres are given a broad definition in §2(g) of the Act to include centres established “to provide all types of skills” catering to a wide range of groups, including “students, in-service employees and working professionals”.

Parallelly, the NCVET recognises Sector Skill Councils (‘SSCs’) to bridge the skilling gaps. SSCs are tasked with conducting certification and assessment for National Occupation Standard related training programmes. However, the way in which the functioning of these state-of-the-art centres would be integrated within mandate of these SSCs remains unclear. The Act grants universities considerable independence to set their own standards for these centres, which overlaps with SSCs’ role in certification and assessment. This overlap creates parallel regulatory regimes leading to inefficiency in regulation and harming the higher education system in Maharashtra. Therefore, the parent Act must function within the national framework, by laying down specific requirements.

The Act must make it mandatory for skill universities to adhere to the standardised competency-based framework established by the NSQF. This must be reflected in alignment of course curricula with that prescribed by the NSQF. The integration of skill universities in Maharashtra with nationally recognised standards would increase the credibility of such institutions, thereby promoting greater mobility of students. Further, the Act must ensure that the universities meet the benchmark nationally prescribed by the NCVET for recognition of awarding bodies and institutions.

Conclusion

Over the course of this article, I have highlighted the artificial distinction between private universities and private skill universities. This distinction conflicts with the objective of effective regulation of their establishment and functioning in Maharashtra and therefore, fails to pass the test of reasonable classification. Further, I have pointed out the absence of mandatory accreditation      and       have      proposed that private skill universities be integrated within the already existing framework of the Maharashtra Private Universities Act, 2023. The UGC and respective professional bodies must regulate these universities similarly to other private universities, to uphold uniform academic standards. In such a paradigm, the regulation of private skill universities in Maharashtra must proceed in line with the national framework established by the NCVET and the NSQF.

* Pranav Mittal, UG student at NLS and observer at LSPR