Is adamant that the policy is right and has to be implemented. According to officials the challenge in the court is only a temporary setback. 

Have been crying hoarse and have approached the court for relief, individually and collectively.

 


Supreme Court

Has provided interim relief for a year and is currently hearing the case.

Status quo

This notification is a perfect example for the saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Nobody can quarrel with the AICTE, when it says admissions has to be transparent, fees must be reasonable, and students must be provided quality content. But the norms they have suggested will not achieve any of them. If admissions are done by State governments, then parochialism is likely to creep in, and the national character of most of the good schools would go down the drain.

Dr. H. Chaturvedi Director, BIMTECH “Lack of feedback is the bane of India’s regulatory regime. It is time, AICTE puts in place a process for consultation with stakeholders”

Ensuring financial transparency would go a long way rather than just fixing fees. Mandating contact hours and specifying competencies would force institutes to think in terms of raising the bar. The ends must be specified and the means to achieve them must be left tot the students.
 

What this myopic policy has achieved is ‘needless confusion’ and sleepless nights for students and, of course, an unexpected windfall for lawyers across the country. But that, we presume, is not AICTE’s intention.
 

 

 Click the image (on the right) to witness how AICTE notification displays huge mismatch between intention and likely outcomes