"Annual renewal of centrally funded schemes undermines institutional continuity in higher education." Critically examine with reference to recent delays in UGC-funded centres.

The UGC's Centre for the Study of Social Inclusion in Universities (CSSIU) scheme began in 2007-08. It funds Master's and PhD teaching and outreach on marginalised communities [1]. Seven months into FY 2026-27, centres in 24 central universities are still waiting for renewal, and staff salaries have been delayed or not paid [1]. The case shows that renewal is necessary but badly designed.

How annual renewal undermines continuity

• Mismatched time frames: five-year PhD and two-year Master's courses run on money that is assured for only one year at a time [1].
• Salaries treated like any other scheme spending: when approval lapses, pay stops even for work already done [1].
• Opaque delay: the Ministry of Education says the proposal is "under process" but gives no timeline [1].
• Talent loss: posts tied to a scheme feel insecure, which pushes young researchers away from social-science careers.
• Equity cost: outreach to tribal and disadvantaged populations stops [1]. This weakens the aims of Article 46 and the equity goals of NEP 2020.

Why periodic review is still justified

• Quality of spending: the 2016 Budget Speech gave every scheme a sunset date and an outcome review [2].
• Evidence-based continuation: schemes are now aligned with Finance Commission cycles, and they continue only if a third-party evaluation supports it [2].
• Pruning: evaluations help remove duplicate schemes and stop funds from sitting unused [2].
• Bunched reviews, not a bad principle: approvals for 54 Centrally Sponsored Schemes and 260 Central Sector Schemes ended on 31 March 2026 and were up for re-appraisal for the 16th Finance Commission cycle [2]. The CSSIU delay came in the same year as this backlog.

Assessment The statement is only partly valid. Review itself is not the problem. The problem is that funding drops to zero while the review is still running, so a slow file works like a funding cut that nobody actually decided on.

Way forward

• Bridge funding: keep paying at last year's level until a decision is made, similar in spirit to a vote on account.
• Fixed review deadlines with advance notice if a scheme is to be closed.
• Move centres that pass evaluation into core university grants.

Scheme review and stable institutions can both be achieved. Approval for several years at a time, guaranteed salaries and time-bound evaluation would protect public money and keep inclusive research going. This serves the constitutional promise of educational justice for weaker sections and SDG 4.