Problem
A third or more of sanctioned teaching posts in central higher-education institutions are vacant
- National
Ministry of Education replies to Parliament recorded roughly a third of sanctioned teaching posts vacant across central universities, with higher rates at the IITs and comparable rates at the IIMs. A Parliamentary panel subsequently reported over half of professor-level positions vacant across the IITs, IIMs, NITs and IISERs collectively. These figures are not interchangeable — they cover different institution sets, different cadres and different dates — and should be cited as separate time-stamped data points rather than reconciled into one number. A Mission Mode recruitment drive has filled tens of thousands of posts including over fifteen thousand faculty positions, so the problem is being worked on and is not yet solved. Evidence confidence: High for the underlying vacancy; Medium for reconciling the specific percentages.
This is the most specific entry on this branch of the catalogue. The evidence behind it is below.
Who is responsible
- Ministry of Education — Department of Higher Education · Ministry or Department
- University Grants Commission (UGC) · Regulatory body
- Institution Boards of Governors and Executive Councils · Union GovernmentActual appointing authority
Evidence and sources
- Ministry of Education replies to Lok Sabha on faculty vacancies in central institutions · Official statementInstitution-wise vacancy figures placed before Parliament.
- Parliamentary Standing Committee report on faculty vacancies in premier institutions, March 2025 · Government documentProfessor-level vacancy across IITs, IIMs, NITs and IISERs.
Alongside this
Posts reserved for SC, ST, OBC, EWS and disabled candidates go unfilled at far higher rates than general-category posts
Vacancy in central higher-education institutions is not evenly distributed across categories. Reported rates for EWS and disabled-candidate posts are several times the general-category rate, and reserved posts make up a majority of all vacancies. That pattern points at selection practice rather than an absence of candidates, and it is a distinct equity problem rather than a scaled-down version of the general vacancy problem. Evidence confidence: High that reserved-post vacancy is dramatically higher than general-category vacancy; the exact rates are date-specific and should be cited with their reporting date.
Research and development investment has stagnated far below comparable economies, with weak private participation
Gross expenditure on R&D sat at around 0.64% of GDP for roughly two decades, rising to about 0.84% in 2023-24 with further increases projected by DST's own statistics. Comparable economies spend two to five times that share. The private sector contributes around 36 to 37% of India's R&D spending against 70 to 80% in China and the United States, though private spending exceeded government spending for the first time in FY24. Researcher density is around 255 per million people. Evidence confidence: High — among the most consistently multi-sourced findings in this domain, with convergent figures from Parliamentary replies, DST's own statistics publication and independent analysis. Note that primary ownership sits with DST and ANRF rather than the Ministry of Education; if a Science, Technology & Digital domain is populated later, this problem may belong there instead.
Student suicides at premier central institutions have a documented institutional-accountability dimension
The Ministry of Education has reported to Parliament that over a hundred students died by suicide across the IITs, NITs, central universities and other central institutions between 2014 and 2021, and more recent reporting records over a hundred at the IITs alone across a longer window, with fresh incidents in 2025. Some documented cases raise questions beyond mental health: at least one case initially treated as suicide was later reclassified following investigation, in a context where the student had filed a discrimination complaint. Existing complaint-based anti-discrimination mechanisms are criticised as deterring complainants. The Supreme Court has expressed concern. Evidence confidence: Medium-High for the aggregate trend, which is Ministry-sourced; Medium for the discrimination-linked framing, which rests on individual documented cases rather than a study quantifying the pattern.
Do you support action on this problem?