Madras HC Stays Release of NIRF 2025 Rankings Over Alleged Data Manipulation

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday, in an interim order of stay, prevented the Union Education Ministry and the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) from releasing the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) rank list for 2025.

A division bench of Justices J Nisha Banu and S Srimathy disposed the order on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition preferred by Dindigul's C Chellamuthu charging malpractices and transparency deficit in scoring calculations for the rank list.

Chellamuthu, in his petition, averred that the NIRF ranking is determined solely on the basis of the data furnished by the institutions without auditing or verification. He averred that several institutions furnish false data to enhance their ranking to attract students and MNCs.

He furnished comparative reports of the National Assessment and Accreditation Council's (NAAC's) AQAR (Annual Quality Assurance Report) reports and the NIRF reports, uploaded online by certain institutions.

He asserted that the numbers related to the number of PhD students, faculties, R&D funds, consultancy project funds received, etc., are more in the NIRF reports than in the AQAR reports.

'Institutions with poor academic quality and infrastructure receive top rankings'

Since the AQAR reports are cross-checked by NAAC's professional committees, the inconsistencies in NIRF data indicate that institutions have manipulated their submissions to get higher rankings, Chellamuthu asserted. This, he charged, enables institutions with inferior academic quality and infrastructure to get top rankings, while several renowned state universities are left out. He cautioned that such manipulation could damage the quality of higher education in the nation.

The petitioner implored the court to order the Union Ministry and NBA to release NIRF rankings—which evaluate educational institutions across the country—only after strict verification and complete disclosure of the scoring process.

After considering the data provided, the bench made an interim order. The government advocate asked for time to file a counter affidavit, and the case was listed for April 24.