Why the higher education system needs a better system to deal with fake universities

The University Grants Commission’s (UGC) latest list of fake universities has returned to the spotlight after the Ministry of Education recently told the Rajya Sabha that 32 institutions had been identified as fake in its 2026 list. The disclosure came in response to a question about misleading ed-tech advertisements promising 100% placements, high-paying jobs, and unauthorised affiliations, as well as complaints about fake universities and invalid degrees. This makes the issue more than a routine regulatory update. The 32 institutions are not a new discovery but an updated count. In 2022, UGC listed 21 such institutions; and 20 in 2023. The number is now 32 across 12 states, with four appearing on the list for the first time. But the more important question is not how many UGC has identified, but what happens after they are identified.

Delhi offers the clearest example. In 2023, it had eight fake universities, the highest in the country. In 2026, it has 12, still the highest. This is significant because the capital has considerable regulatory and enforcement capacity, including the UGC headquarters, Delhi Police, and its Economic Offences Wing. Yet, some institutions continue to appear on the list years after they were first identified. Detection, therefore, does not appear to be the main problem as much as what follows detection. Some names on successive lists make this difficult to ignore. When institutions identified years ago remain on the regulator’s list, it raises two basic questions: what was the enforcement action that was taken and what happened to students who may have enrolled in them?

Who takes action?

UGC can identify an institution as unauthorised and warn the public, but it does not have the police powers to shut down premises or prosecute operators. It has written to the state authorities seeking action against fake institutions. The government has also said that action has been taken against some and that fake universities have been closed. The problem, therefore, is not that nothing happens, but the absence of a clear publicly visible enforcement chain. There is no easily accessible institution-wise account showing whether an FIR was registered, an investigation was conducted, an institution was closed, prosecution was launched, or students were assisted. UGC identifies the institution and refers the matter to the relevant authorities. What happens next is much harder for the public to see.

The regulatory problem, however, extends beyond fake universities. UGC has warned about ed-tech companies offering online and distance-learning programmes through franchise arrangements with recognised universities. The university named may be genuine; it is the arrangement through which the programme is offered that may violate UGC regulations. This is harder for students to detect. The certificate may carry the name of a university that the UGC genuinely recognises, even though the programme itself is delivered through an impermissible arrangement. A public warning asking students to verify recognition is useful, but it places much of the regulatory burden on them. What is less clear is what responsibility the platforms that carry such advertisements have for verifying claims about institutional and programme recognition.

Way forward

More notices alone will not close these gaps. Once an institution is identified as unauthorised, the referral to the relevant authorities should carry a clear deadline for investigation and action. Repeat appearance on subsequent UGC lists should trigger mandatory escalation. States should report the outcome of every referred case to UGC with the status made public. Students who have already enrolled and paid also need protection. What happens when their institution is declared fake? Who informs them? Can fees be recovered? Can they transfer to legitimate institutions? Students who enrolled before the institution was identified should not bear the full cost of a fraud that regulators subsequently exposed. The same principle should apply to online education. Platforms carrying degree advertisements should be required to verify basic claims about institutional and programme recognition where these can be checked against public regulatory databases. The aim should not be another layer of bureaucracy but to protect students from having to perform the regulator’s job before paying for a degree.

India’s higher education system is already under criticism for uneven quality and weak enforcement. UGC has demonstrated its ability to identify fake universities. The real test is what happens afterwards. A regulatory system cannot be judged only by how many institutions it names but by whether identification leads, within a defined period, to closure, to prosecution where warranted, and to protection for the students caught in between.

Views expressed are personal

The writer is Professor (Retd) and Former Dean, School of Arts and Humanities, CHRIST (Deemed to be) University, Bengaluru.