The recent NAAC rating bribery case

Occurrence on February 1, 2025.

The incident involved the arrest of the chairman and six members of a National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) Inspection Committee by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for allegedly accepting bribes in exchange for favorable accreditation ratings for various Indian universities and higher education institutions. The CBI conducted raids across 20 locations in India, including Chennai, Bangalore, and New Delhi, recovering cash, gold, mobile phones, and laptops. The bribes were allegedly given by office bearers of a Guntur-based educational foundation operating KL University.

Pros and cons of NAAC certification leading to corruption among reviewers and similar cases world wide

NAAC (National Assessment and Accreditation Council) certification is designed to ensure quality standards in higher education institutions (HEIs) in India. However, it has also been criticized for creating opportunities for corruption among reviewers. Here’s an analysis of its pros and cons, along with similar cases worldwide.

Pros of NAAC Certification:

1. Quality Assurance: Accreditation ensures that institutions meet academic and infrastructure benchmarks, improving the overall standard of education.
2. Funding and Recognition: Higher NAAC grades help institutions secure government grants, industry partnerships, and better student enrollment.
3. Accountability and Transparency: The process requires institutions to document their performance, increasing institutional accountability.
4. Competitive Edge: Institutions with high accreditation scores attract better faculty and students.
5. Encourages Continuous Improvement: Regular assessments push institutions to upgrade their teaching methodologies, research output, and facilities.

Cons of NAAC Certification Leading to Corruption:

1. Bribery and Manipulation: Institutions may resort to bribing NAAC assessors for higher grades, as seen in the recent case where officials allegedly accepted bribes to inflate ratings.
2. Subjectivity in Evaluation: The assessment process often depends on the discretion of peer reviewers, leaving room for favoritism and bias.
3. Focus on Documentation over Actual Quality: Many institutions prioritize paperwork and superficial compliance over genuine academic excellence.
4. Exclusion of New or Smaller Institutions: The accreditation process can be expensive and time-consuming, making it difficult for smaller colleges to compete fairly.
5. Pressure to Inflate Achievements: Institutions may exaggerate their research output, faculty qualifications, or student success rates to secure higher ratings.

Similar Cases Worldwide:

It’s not that this phenomenon of corruption happens in India alone. There is a history of similar rigging of the accreditations all across the world. A few of the cases are listed below:

1. Higher Learning Commission (HLC) Scandals – USA

The U.S. Higher Learning Commission, responsible for accrediting colleges, has faced scrutiny over approving for-profit colleges with poor academic standards. Some institutions allegedly used lobbying and influence to maintain their accreditation.

2. China’s University Ranking Corruption

In China, universities have been accused of bribing officials and manipulating data to improve rankings in national and global rating systems like QS and Times Higher Education. Some institutions falsified faculty qualifications and research impact metrics.

3. Russia’s Fake Accreditation Scandal

Several Russian universities were found to have used fraudulent accreditation documents, allowing them to continue operating despite failing to meet quality standards. The government later cracked down on such institutions.

4. Philippines CHED Accreditation Fraud

The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) in the Philippines faced allegations that some assessors accepted bribes to certify substandard universities, leading to the proliferation of "diploma mills."

Possible Solutions to Prevent Corruption in Accreditation:

• Independent Third-Party Review: Rotating assessors from neutral organizations instead of internal committees.
• Strict Digital Audits: Using AI and data-driven methods to verify institutional claims.
• Whistleblower Protection: Encouraging faculty and students to report unethical practices.
• Transparency in Accreditation Scores: Publishing detailed reports explaining how ratings were awarded.
• Stronger Penalties: Strict legal action against both institutions and corrupt officials.

While accreditation is crucial for maintaining educational standards, unchecked corruption can undermine its purpose. Strengthening accountability and oversight can help restore faith in these systems worldwide.