Centre FAQs defend ISI bill, critics call it ‘shallow’ and fear the sink of autonomy
Telegraph | 28 December 2025
The Union ministry of statistics and programme implementation has uploaded a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) defending the proposed Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) Bill, amid mounting resistance from faculty members who fear the legislation will erode the institute’s long-standing autonomy.
The bill seeks to replace ISI’s existing society-based governance structure with a statutory framework headed by a board of governors, the majority of whose members would be nominated by the Centre.
Teachers at ISI have protested against the proposal, arguing that vesting sweeping powers in a centrally appointed board would undermine decades of faculty-led decision-making.
In its justification, the ministry has said that the current governance model has “limited potential for institutional reforms and growth”.
Responding to concerns over the repeal of the ISI Act of 1959 — passed when Jawaharlal Nehru was prime minister — the ministry argued that the size and composition of the existing ISI council impede effective decision-making. The large size of the ISI council, excessive internal representation and a large number of elected members “hinders decision making, as even a small group of dissenters can effectively block important decisions,” the ministry said in the FAQs.
Defending the proposed board of governors, the ministry said the new structure was aligned with governance models followed by other Institutes of National Importance (INIs), such as the IITs and IIMs. “The legislative process is for incorporation of ISI into a statutory body corporate, upscaling and strengthening its legal status and providing a more robust and contemporary governance framework in line with peer INIs,” it said.
The ministry has refuted allegations that the bill sidelines the academic council by granting the board unbridled powers. According to the FAQs, “the proposed the board of governors will be an empowered body consisting of 11 members and having a balanced representation of external and internal members, including two members of the academic council.”
The ministry maintained that the academic council’s core function — organisation and modification of courses, eligibility criteria, selection procedures and evaluation systems — will remain “central and mandatory in nature”.
The FAQs come against the backdrop of growing political and academic opposition to the bill. Earlier this month, a group of ISI students and researchers met leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi on the Parliament premises, urging Opposition parties to take a united stand against the legislation when it is tabled.
Trinamool Congress MPs also raised concerns over the bill during the recently concluded winter session of Parliament.
Teachers, both current and retired, have alleged that the bill was drafted without consultation with the ISI community. At present, administrative decisions at ISI are taken by a 33-member general council comprising teaching and non-teaching staff, while academic matters are governed by the academic council, made up entirely of faculty members.
Under the proposed bill, most of these powers would be transferred to the board of governors.
The ministry has disputed allegations of inadequate consultation. “Four Review Committees (RCs), from time to time, have examined the functioning and progress of ISI... The fourth RC also identified structural and legacy issues, including large representation in ISI council and excessive reliance on election. However, their reformative recommendations were not implemented by the ISI,” it said.
Former ISI professor and National Chair of Science Partha P. Majumder criticised the ministry’s rationale. In an emailed response to the ministry, Majumder said there was no justification for dismantling ISI’s society-based governance model.
“The fact that ISI represents one of only two current INIs should not be viewed as an anomaly demanding correction, but as recognition that a uniform governance template is neither necessary nor desirable for academic excellence,” Majumder wrote.
A former director of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, Majumder argued that what the ministry sees as obstacles — the size of the general body and its approval mechanisms — are in fact strengths. “These are hallmarks of democratic procedure of governance,” he wrote.
Majumder also rejected comparisons between ISI and teaching-focused institutions like IITs and IIMs. “ISI is not a teaching-centric professional institute but a research-intensive, discipline-defining institution with a long tradition of faculty-led governance akin to premier research institutes worldwide,” he said, citing Germany’s Max Planck Institutes as an example.
Speaking to Metro, Majumder described the ministry’s argument as “shallow”. He warned that concentrating executive, financial and strategic authority in a small board dominated by external members could encourage top-down control, diminishing the influence of faculty collectives.