A Parliamentary Standing Committee has questioned whether multiple-choice question (MCQ)-based entrance tests are suitable for humanities and social science disciplines, expressing concern that the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) may restrict institutions like Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) from fulfilling their statutory mandate of ensuring socio-economic and regional diversity in admissions.
The observations were made in the 381st report submitted to the Rajya Sabha on the action taken by the government on recommendations regarding the Demands for Grants (2025-26) of the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education.
The remarks come amid ongoing criticism of CUET since its introduction in 2022. Several universities and teachers' groups have argued that the MCQ-based test has diminished the focus on analytical and descriptive skills, while repeated delays in examinations and result announcements have disrupted academic calendars.
Committee's Concerns on CUET
The committee, chaired by Congress MP Digvijay Singh, noted that “MCQ answers are particularly ill suited for humanities and social sciences disciplines which are definitionally centered on independent, subjective thinking.” Specifically referencing JNU, it observed that the university’s earlier admission system was designed to ensure the socio-economic and regional diversity and representation mandated under the JNU Act.
While acknowledging the advantages of a common entrance examination, the panel stated, “The CUET as the sole entrance examination has its merits, but it does not allow for Universities like JNU, with their specific legislative mandates, to meet their specific needs.” It recommended a review of the quality of question papers and the examination design.
Faculty Promotion Delays at JNU
The report also flagged delays in faculty promotions at JNU. Citing information placed before it, the committee said around 50 faculty members eligible for promotion to professor continue to remain associate professors, about 30 eligible for professorship remain assistant professors, while another 30 eligible for associate professorship have not been promoted from the assistant professor level.
In its action taken note, the government stated that recruitment and promotions are carried out in accordance with UGC regulations and university statutes, and efforts are being made to clear pending Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) cases. However, the committee found the response inadequate.
“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 being due for years,” the report said. It reiterated its recommendation that the department examine such cases and “take expeditious action so that a qualified and deserving candidate gets his or her promotion on time.”
St Stephen's College and Other Issues
Similar issues at Delhi University’s St Stephen’s College were also highlighted. The report noted that constituent colleges of Institutes of Eminence such as DU had become entangled in disputes over basic functions including faculty recruitment and promotions. Citing the case of St Stephen’s College, the committee said recruitment and promotion processes had remained stalled since 2022 despite more than 30 faculty vacancies, and recommended that the litigation surrounding the matter be resolved at the earliest.
Recommendations for Diversity and Historical Universities
The panel also recommended that annual admissions reports detailing the gender, caste, social, ethnic, rural-urban, and class backgrounds of students be submitted by all centrally funded institutions, including JNU, to their academic and executive councils.
In another recommendation with implications for JNU, the committee called for an assessment of India’s oldest public universities and suggested a dedicated programme to support historically significant institutions in continuing their academic and intellectual leadership. The universities mentioned by the panel also included Delhi University, Allahabad University, Calcutta University, Bombay University, Dr Hari Singh Gour University, and Madras University. The committee suggested that such support could be provided either through an extension of the Institute of Eminence scheme or through a separate mechanism.
Responding to the recommendation, the government noted that Delhi University and Banaras Hindu University had already been granted Institute of Eminence status and said the issue of funding historically significant universities could be taken up during future reviews of higher education funding schemes.
