India’s National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), launched in 2015 to rank higher education institutions, is facing intense scrutiny due to data manipulation allegations. Recent investigations into Andhra University and IIM Mumbai reveal significant discrepancies in reported faculty numbers, raising questions about the reliability of NIRF rankings. As these rankings guide millions of students’ college decisions, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Let’s dive into the issue, explore the evidence, and discuss what needs to change to restore trust in this critical system.
The Role and Importance of NIRF Rankings
Since its inception, NIRF has aimed to provide a localized alternative to global rankings like China’s Shanghai Rankings, focusing on parameters tailored to India’s education context. It ranks institutions across categories like Universities, Colleges, Engineering, and Management, influencing students’ and parents’ choices.
Key Points:
- Five Core Parameters: Rankings are based on Teaching, Learning & Resources (TLR), Research and Professional Practice (RP), Graduation Outcomes (GO), Outreach and Inclusivity (OI), and Perception.
- Faculty Strength Matters: Faculty data significantly impacts rankings, contributing to roughly one-third of the score through metrics like Faculty-Student Ratio (FSR) and Faculty with Ph.D. (FQE).
- Student Impact: NIRF rankings guide millions of prospective students, making data accuracy critical for informed decision-making.
Andhra University: Inflated Faculty Numbers Exposed
Andhra University, a historic institution in Visakhapatnam, has climbed NIRF rankings, moving from 69th in 2017 to 41st in 2024 (Overall) and 25th in the Universities category. However, discrepancies between NIRF submissions and official records tell a different story.
Key Points:
- Declining Sanctioned Posts: The university’s sanctioned teaching posts dropped from 936 in 2021 to 718 in 2025, per RTI data.
- High Vacancies: In 2021, 72% of posts were vacant; by 2025, 59% remained unfilled, with only 192 regular and 99 contract faculty out of 718 posts.
- NIRF Data Mismatch: Andhra University reported 687 faculty in 2022 and 702 from 2023-2025 to NIRF, compared to 373 (2021 annual report), 538 (2022 annual report), and 291 (2025 RTI data).
- Retired Faculty Listed: The 2025 NIRF submission included retired professors as active faculty, verified in at least two cases.
- Rising Expenditure: Despite faculty shortages, salary expenses jumped 32% from ₹462.08 crore in 2022 to ₹608.24 crore in 2024, raising questions about financial reporting.
A student leader, D. Kusumanjali, highlighted additional issues like irregular fee reimbursements and syllabus incompletion, underscoring the impact of faculty shortages on education quality.
IIM Mumbai: A Whistleblower’s Revelations
IIM Mumbai, formerly NITIE, has risen dramatically from 27th in 2019 to 6th in 2024 among management institutes. However, a whistleblower’s allegations of data manipulation have cast doubt on this achievement.
Key Points:
- Faculty Number Discrepancies: NIRF submissions consistently overstated faculty numbers—e.g., 100 in 2021 vs. 60 in the 2020 annual report, and 75 in 2025 vs. 59 in 2024.
- Income and Expenditure Gaps: Between 2019-2023, NIRF submissions reported ₹135 crore in income from consultancy and research, compared to ₹10 crore in annual reports. Expenditure was reported as ₹478 crore in NIRF vs. ₹380 crore in annual reports.
- Whistleblower Retaliation: The employee who flagged these issues was suspended for six months, raising concerns about institutional transparency.
The Flaws in NIRF’s Data Collection
NIRF’s reliance on self-reported data is at the heart of these issues. Without robust verification, institutions may inflate figures to boost rankings.
Key Points:
- Self-Reported Data Risks: A 2024 study by Abhishek Singh and V. Ramgopal Rao noted that institutions better at “presenting data favorably” gain an unfair advantage.
- Lack of Transparency: NIRF’s verification process lacks clarity, with no public disclosure of how often checks occur or their outcomes.
- Survey Findings: A 2024 India Research Watch survey found that half of 410 respondents believed NIRF data could be inaccurate, with some institutions allegedly listing non-teaching staff as faculty.
The Broader Impact on India’s Education System
Data manipulation undermines the credibility of NIRF rankings, misleading students and eroding trust in higher education.
Key Points:
- Student Misguidance: Inaccurate rankings can lead students to choose institutions that don’t reflect their true quality.
- Institutional Pressure: The race to climb rankings may prioritize metrics over genuine academic improvement.
- Global Competitiveness: Flawed rankings hinder India’s ability to benchmark its institutions against global standards.
Urgent Reforms Needed for NIRF
To restore trust, NIRF must address its reliance on self-reported data and enhance transparency.
Key Points:
- Random Audits: Implement surprise inspections and verify course assignments to ensure faculty data accuracy, as suggested by Achal Agrawal of India Research Watch.
- Public Data Access: Release raw data in a transparent format (e.g., CSV) for public scrutiny.
- Clearer Guidelines: Standardize data categories to reduce confusion, as recommended by IIT and IIM professors.
- Penalties for Malpractice: Introduce strict consequences, such as disqualification, for institutions submitting false data.
- Global Alignment: Adopt best practices from global ranking systems to enhance credibility.
