PRESS RELEASE ON 381ST REPORT OF DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, WOMEN, CHILDREN, YOUTH AND SPORTS

Rajya Sabha Secretariat PRESS RELEASE ON 381ST REPORT OF DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, WOMEN, CHILDREN, YOUTH AND SPORTS प्रव तथ: 16 JUN 2026 6:45PM by PIB Delhi The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth and Sports headed by Shri Digvijaya Singh, M.P., Rajya Sabha presented the 381st Report on Action Taken by the Government on the Recommendations/Observations contained in the 364th Report on Demands for Grants (2025-26) pertaining to the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education to Hon’ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha on 16th June, 2026.

2. The Action Taken Report was considered and adopted by the Committee in its meeting held on 1st June, 2026. The Observations/Recommendations made by the Committee in the Report are enclosed herewith.

3. These Reports are also available on the following link:-

https://sansad.in/rs/committees/16?departmentally-related-standing-committees 381st Report Recommendations/Observations of the Committee – At A Glance

1. The Committee notes that the reply in the above recommendations is merely a repetition of the procedural framework of the IoE Scheme and does not address the concerns raised by the Committee. On the first issue, the Committee notes that even eight years after the launch of the scheme, only twelve out of the mandated twenty Institutions of Eminence have been notified. On the second issue, the Committee's recommendation regarding expansion of the Scheme to include globally recognised institutions of the country excelling in social sciences, humanities and developmental studies, such as Jawaharlal Nehru University has not been addressed by the Department. The Committee recommends that the Department should set a time-bound roadmap for identifying and notifying the remaining eight IoEs and also to conduct a feasibility study on expanding the Scheme's ambit.

(Paras 3.3.8 and 3.3.10)

2. The Committee takes note of the response of the Department regarding AISHE 2022-23, 2023- 24, and 2024-25 data collection. However, it expresses concern that three years' reports still remain unpublished and are to be released together, which defeats the purpose of an annual survey. The Committee reiterates that student-level data collection be adopted at the earliest.

It further recommends that the Department should establish a fixed annual timeline forAISHE publication as any delay in access to data undermines evidence-based policymaking in higher education, particularly concerning SC/ST/OBC/EWS enrolment monitoring.

(Paras 3.9.9)

3. The Committee notes the responses of the Department on the education loan support framework and observes that a systemic inadequacy exists in the financial assistance architecture for students pursuing higher education. On the issue of interest subvention, the Committee acknowledges the extension of 3% interest subvention up to ₹8 lakh family income under PM-Vidyalaxmi. However, since this benefit is provided only to students of Quality HEIs, as a result, a vast majority of students enrolled in non-QHEIs continue to be excluded.

Further, the income ceiling of ₹4.5 lakh under PM-USP CSIS remains inadequate given the prevailing economic realities. The Committee therefore, reiterates that the family income ceiling must be uniformly enhanced to ₹8 lakh across all schemes, all types of courses, and all institutions, without any conditionality based on institutional quality rankings.

On the Priority Sector Lending limit, the Committee acknowledges the RBI's revision from ₹20 lakh to ₹25 lakh as a step in the right direction. However, this falls considerably short of the Committee's recommended limit of ₹50 lakh. Given the escalating cost of higher education and the availability of collateral-free loans under PM Vidyalaxmi, the revised limit remains insufficient. The Committee therefore reiterates its recommendation that the Department actively pursue the matter with the Ministry of Finance and the RBI to raise the PSL limit to ₹50 lakh.

On the Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme for Education Loans (CGFSEL), the Committee would like to highlight that the guarantee cover ceiling of ₹7.5 lakh has remained unchanged since 2015 despite a decade of significant inflation in education costs. A general assurance of revisiting the ceiling during scheme renewal is not convincing. The Committee therefore, urges the Government to enhance the guarantee cover to ₹20 lakh forthwith.

(paras 3.13.13, 3.13.14 and 3.13.15)

4. The Committee notes that the response only talks about general procedures and rules but disregards the specific issue raised about Jawaharlal Nehru University, where many eligible faculty members have not been promoted despite the same being due for years. The Committee therefore reiterates its earlier recommendation to the Department that it should look into such specific cases and take expeditious action so that a qualified and deserving candidate gets his or her promotion on time.

(para 3.16.9)

5. The Committee notes that replies furnished by the department in response to the observations contained in paras 8 to 10 above lack specificity. The Committee, therefore, recommends the Department that replies should be comprehensive and should not be inconclusive or in general terms. Further, a detailed reply to the observations as contained in paras 8 to 10 above in

Chapter-III may be provided at the earliest for consideration of the Committee. (paras 3.16.15, 3.16.16, 3.16.17)6. The Committee notes the steps taken by the Ministry, including the constitution of the High- Powered Steering Committee headed by Dr. K. Radhakrishnan to monitor the implementation of recommendations of HLCE. However, despite these measures, the paper irregularities are still happening leading to the cancellation of the examinations thereby causing a lot of anxiety among students. The Committee reiterates its recommendations as contained in its 371st Report on this issue. The Committee also recommends the Department to publish a time- bound implementation roadmap for the HLCE recommendations at the earliest (para 3.18.2)

7. The Committee notes the continuing delay in implementation of the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations in ICSSR affiliated research institutes and regional centres. This matter has been flagged by the Committee in its 364th Report and reiterated in its subsequent 371st Report. This delay is affecting the ability of these institutes to attract and retain quality researchers. The Committee is of the view that the Department should pro-actively take up this issue with the Ministry of Finance and implement the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations without any further delay.

(para 3.20.1)

8. The Committee notes that replies furnished by the department in response to the observations contained in para 13 above in Chapter-III lack specificity. The Committee, therefore, recommends the Department that replies should be comprehensive and should not be inconclusive or in general terms. Accordingly, a detailed reply to the observations as contained in para 13 above in Chapter-III may be provided at the earliest for consideration of the Committee.

(para 3.22.3)

9. The Committee notes that the Department merely reiterated the existing financing mechanism already acknowledged in the Committee's original recommendation. The Committee, therefore, reiterates that the approved capital cost of ₹128 crores, frozen since 2010 without inflation adjustment, is wholly inadequate for achieving financial sustainability. It further recommends that the Department should undertake a comprehensive financial review of all 20 IIITs (PPP), index capital costs to current price levels, and prepare a concrete proposal for one-time grant-based capital infusion the earliest.

(para 3.23.4)

10. The Committee notes that replies furnished by the department in response to the observations contained in paras 15 to 18 above in Chapter-III lack specificity. The Committee, therefore, recommends the Department that replies should be comprehensive and should not be inconclusive or in general terms. Further, a detailed reply to the observations as contained in paras 15 to 18 above in Chapter-III may be provided at the earliest for consideration of the Committee.

(paras 3.23.5, 3.23.6, 3.23.7 and 3.24.1) ****RKK (रलीज़ आईडी: 2273676) आगंतुक पटल : 618 इस वज्ञ को इन भाषाओ ंम पढ़: Urdu , ही