MUMBAI: The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) took a dramatic step, cutting nearly a fifth of its peer reviewers – almost 900 of them – after allegations of corruption surfaced in the grading process. The purge followed a tip-off to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that assessors visiting Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, a deemed university in Andhra Pradesh, solicited a bribe in exchange for the highest accreditation grade.
At a moment when NAAC was already reassessing its accreditation framework, the mass removal of reviewers signalled a deeper shift. Letters from the NAAC director to the remaining peer reviewers made clear that their work was more than procedural; it was a “nationally important assignment”.
“We were reviewing our processes for over a year. We were also looking at the assessors on board and while we removed many, we were also looking at onboarding some senior academicians, vice-chancellors, deans, and directors of reputed institutes,” said professor Anil Sahasrabudhe, chairman of the NAAC executive committee.
In a move aimed at eradicating corruption and streamlining accreditation, after the KLEF case, NAAC abruptly halted physical inspections of colleges. Evaluations, it said, would now be conducted entirely online, eliminating campus visits for colleges. Universities, though, would see a hybrid approach-most assessments would be remote, but select reviewers would still conduct on-site visits to ensure oversight.
“Integrity is not a line item-it is the very foundation of trust in the system. We dropped more than 900 assessors. In some cases, the data about these assessors was insufficient; in others, we reviewed their assessments and found them lacking. Some were removed based on feedback we received, and in others, we analysed how they wrote their reports,” NAAC director Ganesan Kannabiran told TOI.
The scrutiny extended beyond individual assessors. NAAC also examined assessment reports from institutions that requested a re-evaluation of their grades. “In some cases, we compared the two assessment reports and felt that certain assessors’ performance did not meet NAAC’s requirements,” Kannabiran added. Those names, too, were struck off the list.
The crackdown went beyond internal reform. Each peer team member now receives a direct letter from the NAAC director, reminding them of the expectations placed upon them. “In recent times, we received complaints that a few higher education institutions (HEIs) were offering above-normal hospitality, organising elaborate cultural activities, arranging sightseeing, and most importantly, offering gifts. Please discourage these aspects and report to us if you notice any such acts or intentions of the HEIs.” A similar message is sent to the institutes too, asking them not to indulge in “elaborate” hospitality.
The letter is unequivocal. “We are in the process of identifying such practices of the HEIs and taking punitive action. Keeping the long-term requirements of our nation in mind, I sincerely request you to ensure that a critical and transparent approach is adopted during the entire period of assignment. I strongly believe your invaluable commitment with honesty and integrity in this regard shall positively impact the credibility of NAAC and eventually enhance the quality of education.”