The India Rankings (IR) 2025 under the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) reaffirm the dominance of legacy public institutions. Despite expanded scope and participation, concerns remain over parameters, inclusivity, and practical utility.

About NIRF Rankings

• National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) is a ranking methodology released annually by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, to rank institutions of higher education in India.
• Parameters: Institutions are evaluated based on five key parameters: teaching, learning, and resources (30%), research and professional practice (30%), graduation outcomes (20%), outreach and inclusivity or OI (10%), and peer perception (10%).
• Scope: Since its inception in 2016, the number of participating institutions has grown significantly, from 3,565 to 14,163, and the scope has expanded from four categories to 17, spanning a wide range of higher education sectors

Key Shortcomings of the NIRF Rankings

• Subjectivity of Peer Perception Parameter: The “Peer Perception” parameter, which accounts for 10% of the ranking’s weight, is considered highly subjective. 
  • This parameter involves asking experts and companies about their opinion of an institution. 
    • Established institutions like IIT Delhi often receive higher ratings due to their existing brand value, even if a remote state university might be performing well. 
• Lack of Data Integrity: A major issue is that the data submitted by institutions to NIRF is self-declared, and the verification process is not robust. 
  • Institutions often manipulate data to present a better image of themselves. 
    • If no action is taken against institutions that provide false data, the credibility of the entire ranking system is undermined.
• Limited Scope of Inclusivity: While “Outreach & Inclusivity” is a parameter with 10% weight, it is not adequately prioritised: only Jawaharlal Nehru University and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, are among the top 10 institutions with OI scores above 70. 
  • The NIRF booklet on the IR focuses only on outcomes related to regional and gender diversity. 
    • It conspicuously omits data on students who are economically and socially disadvantaged and with disabilities, despite these factors each having a 20% weightage within the OI component.
• Issues at the Faculty Level:
  • Non-implementation of Faculty Reservation: Central universities have provisions for reservation in faculty positions for SC, ST, and OBC categories, but these posts often remain vacant. 
  • Ranking as a Ritual: The annual release of rankings has become a mere ritual.
    • There is insufficient attention paid to supporting institutions that perform poorly or to the steps these colleges take to improve their rankings.
  • Crisis in Research: Beyond the top 100 colleges, there is a significant shortage of PhD-qualified faculty. 
    • Alarmingly, 58% of management institutions reportedly published “zero research papers,” indicating a focus solely on teaching rather than knowledge creation.

Way Forward

• Strengthen Data Integrity: Strict measures should be implemented to stop the submission of false data, including rigorous verification processes and taking action against institutions that provide incorrect information.
• Refine Parameters: Subjective parameters, particularly “Peer Perception,” need to be addressed and fixed to ensure objectivity.
• Enhance Inclusivity and Faculty Reservation: The weightage for “Outreach & Inclusivity” should be increased, and it must be ensured that faculty reservation policies are effectively implemented across institutions.
• Utilise as a Policy Tool: The NIRF should be used by the government as a policy tool to support underperforming institutions, rather than just ranking them.
• Implement a Mentorship Model: A mentorship model should be established where high-ranking institutions, such as the IITs, guide and support new and emerging institutes .

DOWNLOAD PDF