Is It Time to Reconsider the NAAC Accreditation System?

For decades, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) across India have displayed their NAAC accreditation grades like badges of honor, symbols of their commitment to academic excellence. Students and parents have relied on these ratings to make life-changing decisions, while faculty and policymakers have trusted them as benchmarks of institutional quality. But beneath this structured evaluation system, whispers of manipulation and favoritism have long existed, dismissed as mere assumption—until now.

The recent bribery scandal has shattered that illusion. The CBI's arrest of NAAC Inspection Committee members for allegedly accepting bribes to manipulate accreditation ratings has confirmed long-standing suspicions of corruption. Raids uncovered cash, gold, and evidence linking the scheme to KLEF officials and academicians from multiple HEIs. NAAC has barred KLEF from accreditation for five years and permanently banned the implicated reviewers. With ongoing evaluations under scrutiny and 10 arrests made, the case raises serious concerns about India's accreditation system.

A higher education institution’s quality is assessed through factors like curriculum, student outcomes, research and innovation, academic standards, faculty expertise, sustainability, and infrastructure, all of which influence funding and regulatory approvals. Higher-rated HEIs gain greater autonomy and increased access to government grants, allowing them to expand academic programs and enhance research initiatives. NAAC plays a vital role in shaping the national and international reputation of these HEIs, influencing student enrollment, faculty recruitment, and funding opportunities. However, concerns about inconsistencies in its ratings have persisted for years, with some higher education institutions lacking strong infrastructure and academic standards receiving higher grades than more reputed HEIs.

Following are key changes India must consider:

1. Decentralization & Diversification:

India needs to move beyond NAAC’s centralized control and establish multiple independent accrediting agencies, as seen in the US and Germany, to prevent excessive power concentration and allow HEIs to choose accreditors aligned with their academic focus. In the US, HEIs undergo rigorous self-evaluations before external reviews, fostering accountability and continuous improvement, while a peer-review model involving vetted academicians ensures ethical assessments resistant to corruption. Accreditation decisions and detailed reports are made public, enhancing transparency, unlike NAAC, which only publishes final ratings. To address this, some HEIs of Eminence and top universities should form not-for-profit accrediting bodies with well-defined operating procedures and the same authority as NAAC, fostering competition based on credibility, rigour, and transparency. Ratings should be based on thorough peer reviews by vetted academicians and industry experts, ensuring fair and informed evaluations, ultimately creating a system where HEIs are judged on academic merit rather than bureaucratic discretion.

Some of our HEIs of Eminence and top universities should come together to create not-for-profit accrediting bodies with well-defined operating procedures. These agencies should have the same authority as NAAC, fostering competition based on credibility, rigour, and transparency. Ratings should rely on thorough peer reviews by vetted academicians and industry experts, ensuring fair and informed evaluations. This will create a system where HEIs are judged on academic merit rather than bureaucratic discretion.

2.Prioritise Outcomes Over Inputs:

Accreditation should move beyond measuring inputs like infrastructure and faculty size and instead emphasize outcome-driven metrics. Countries like Australia assess HEIs based on research impact, graduate employability, innovation, and societal contributions—an approach India must adopt. By shifting focus to tangible results, accreditation can become a catalyst for institutional excellence rather than a bureaucratic formality.

To sustain quality, HEIs must embrace continuous improvement by incorporating student feedback and faculty development into their evaluation processes. A rigid grading system often promotes short-term compliance, whereas a more flexible, qualitative model—like that of the UK—encourages long-term growth and meaningful advancements in education.