The Supernumerary Seats Scheme (SSS) by IITs, launched in 2018 to extend the share of girls in undergraduate engineering programmes by creating 20% extra seats completely for feminine college students, has been pretty profitable in boosting enrolment, albeit with some regional variation. Following the identical scheme, JNU has additionally introduced the introduction of 11% supernumerary seats for girls in its B.Tech programmes.
(Sign up for THEdge, The Hindu’s weekly training e-newsletter.)
Approved at an Executive Council assembly in April, the proposal provides 14 seats per batch throughout Computer Science Engineering (CSE) and Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) at JNU’s School of Engineering. Importantly, these are supernumerary seats, created over and above current capability making certain that the present reservation matrix stays untouched. Admissions are anticipated to proceed by means of the Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA), aligning JNU with the nationwide engineering admissions framework.
Does it deal with disparities?
Avinash Kumar, Secretary of the JNU Teachers’ Association (JNUTA), highlighted that although the scheme is the mirror transfer of IITs, you will need to be aware that their admissions fully depend on the JEE Advanced, which is without doubt one of the hardest aggressive exams in India. Hence, this introduction of supernumerary seats has improved gender variety, with out essentially altering the aggressive technique of admissions, or emphasizing disparities in preparations.
He talks about JNU’s deprivation factors system, which, in contrast to supernumerary seats, operates inside the admission course of itself-reshaping advantage by accounting for structural drawback. As per the JNU e-prospectus, candidates can obtain as much as a most of 12 deprivation factors, that are added to their entrance efficiency. These factors are awarded throughout three broad dimensions: Regional and Educational Disadvantage, Gender-Based Deprivation, Special Categories.
He stated, “It is within this context that JNU’s own institutional history becomes very relevant. Until recent years, JNU had amassed a comparatively balanced gender ratio across various programmes. However, these admissions were not through any supernumerary provisions, but through a well designed structurally embedded admission policy, which is what we call it as deprivation points system. This system accounted for a more integrated form of inclusivity for gender alongside regional and socio-economic disadvantaged students.”
He knowledgeable, “During this deprivation system, women constituted around 53% of the students at the university in the year 2017-18, this figure stood out in the Indian higher education landscape, creating a niche for gender-balanced and inclusive academic environments.” “However, this balance”, he argued, “was not accidental but the outcome of a carefully crafted structural admission framework that integrated disadvantage directly into the merit evaluation.”
What makes this mannequin totally different
The key distinction is the place the intervention occurs. Deprivation factors are constructed into the advantage checklist—they alter who will get chosen. Gender can be explicitly integrated: girls and transgender candidates obtain 5 to seven extra factors relying on whether or not in addition they belong to different deprived classes similar to SC/ST/OBC (NCL), PwD, or quartile districts. Certain teams, similar to Kashmiri migrants, are additionally eligible for added factors. However, the system just isn’t uniformly applied throughout all programs, skilled programmes similar to B.Tech and M.Tech (CSE/ECE), amongst others,
Mr. Kumar additional argued, “If gender is a source of deprivation, then it should be incorporated within the admission process, rather than addressing it through add-on mechanisms.” “However, the dissimilitude with the current proposal for the admissions through JoSAA in engineering programmes is stark. This scheme avoids the incorporation of deprivation points, effectively separating them from the JNU’s broader admission philosophy.”
Mr. Kumar additional identified the inner pattern to echo this concern, he shared “Following the recent changes in admission policies, specially the removal of deprivation-based criteria in certain programmes. The overall proportion of women students has dwindled in recent years, falling around 43-44% in the latest academic cycles.”
“That’s why,” he questioned, “it raises a bigger concern, whether this scheme of supernumerary seats can address disparities that are rooted in structural inequalities or encourage the gap further more?”
“Adding 11% seats may increase numbers at the margins but that does not change the underlying imbalance. Moreover, there is a huge risk of benefiting those who already have the resources to access these opportunities,” he added.
A measured intervention, not a unified coverage
For some observers, JNU’s transfer displays an expedient strategy, helpful for a objective however restricted; it’s an intervention moderately than a complete gender coverage.
The similar was argued by Prof. Saurin Das of the IISER Kolkata who emphasised that the college is utilizing supernumerary seats as a “practical tool” to handle seen imbalances, moderately than as a part of a totally articulated, long-term framework. “The gender-based seats look like a targeted step,” he stated, “but not necessarily one embedded within a broader policy vision.”
He moreover identified that the inner knowledge driving the choice just isn’t fully clear. While the coverage appears influenced by precedents set by establishments such because the IITs, larger transparency round JNU’s personal applicant pool, consumption patterns, and gender ratios would strengthen the rationale.
The IISER professor believes that the 11% determine itself seems cautious, because it displays each infrastructural constraints and the comparatively latest institution of JNU’s engineering programmes, moderately than an try and match nationwide benchmarks. As these programmes are comparatively new and function with restricted amenities, which naturally caps how a lot consumption will be expanded within the quick time period. A modest proportion permits the college to introduce gender-based correction with out straining current assets.
He additional stated, “There are also structural choices that upheave further questions. Moreover, limiting the intervention to CSE and ECE may be administratively efficient, given their status as core programmes, but it concentrates inclusion within already high-demand disciplines rather than distributing it more evenly.”
Infrastructure, optics, and institutional steadiness
JNU’s choice to align the seat growth with infrastructure progress is, in some ways, sensible. However, Prof. Das emphasised that this might decelerate the tempo of inclusion if capability growth dawdles behind demand. “Ideally, inclusion should not feel entirely dependent on infrastructure constraints,” he noticed.
“Within the JoSAA framework for supernumerary, the idea of adding seats without disturbing existing allocations is standard. The more critical question is,” he additional pointed, “whether these seats will be consistently filled and whether the students admitted through this route are sufficiently supported to succeed.”
Prof. Das additional stated, “This shows that the policy itself exists within a sensitive institutional context. Moreover, JNU has historically positioned itself as an institution anchored in equity-driven admissions, and any such perceived shift in the process, however incremental, can spark debate. Furthermore, the inclusion of a parallel 5% supernumerary provision for the wards of staff further complicates perceptions of fairness and prioritisation.”
“There could be perception issues among students,” Prof. Das famous, including that mentoring methods and tutorial assist buildings could be important to make sure a clean transition and keep away from unintended hierarchies inside lecture rooms.
Beyond entry: The limits of entry-level interventions
More comprehensively, the coverage additionally highlights a lingering disagreement in India’s larger training reforms: the hole between entry and continuity.
“Access is always appreciated, however that is not the end of the story, it is the beginning,” stated Prof. Saumen Chattopadhyay, Associate Professor, JNU. He added, “The real question is whether this given access translates into sustained participation and, eventually, into independent career choices or not and this distinction becomes critical when situated within India’s ‘leaky pipeline’ in science.”
“While through such a process, enrolment at the UG level has become more easy, participation begins to thin out as students move through PG and then into research careers. The decline is not abrupt but cumulative,” Prof. Chattopadhyay defined.
The gendered leak
In the realm of life sciences, gender illustration is comparably balanced at early phases. However in technical fields similar to physics, engineering, and superior analysis domains, the presence of girls plummets considerably. Data from businesses such the Department of Science and Technology (DST) persistently level to this sample.
Prof. Chattopadhyay famous, “According to the government’s Research and Development Statistics report, women constitute 43% of total enrolment in STEM disciplines at the higher education level (AISHE 2021–22), but account for only 18.6% of the country’s research and development (R&D) workforce. This huge gap becomes broader at the higher levels of the scientific career ladder.”
Women stay marginalised in everlasting analysis roles and college positions throughout India’s premier establishments, with their presence in R&D concentrated at 45.87% in authorities establishments, 27.62% in larger training, and 26.51% in trade, erratically in several sectors.
The divergence between near-parity in training and considerably decrease illustration in analysis careers is regarding, it’s apparent that the participation is declining at successive phases regardless of sturdy entry-level numbers, he famous.
Importantly, he stated, “this is not simply a question of dropout rates. However, you cannot look at participation at one stage in isolation,” Prof. Chattopadhyay famous. “Indeed, there is a path dependency, from school to undergraduate, postgraduate, and then research. Each stage shapes the next.”
Prof. Das additional reiterated this fear by emphasising that the hole in gender variety begins a lot sooner than college admissions. By the time college students attain establishments like JNU, many disparities are already embedded, by means of education, preparation, and entry,” he stated. “To address this issue from the root, universities can intervene at the entry stage, however, they are not authorised to fully compensate for what happens before.”
A query of continuity, not simply inclusion
Not solely JNU, however proof from different establishments similar to IITs is instructive. It means that supernumerary seats can considerably enhance gender illustration however solely up to some extent. Beyond that, deeper structural points start to overpower.
Prof. Das additional stated, “As this approach again aligns with broader policy concerns. For example, over the past decade, initiatives such as the KIRAN Scheme have attempted to support women scientists through fellowships and re-entry pathways. However, without systemic improvements in mentorship, financial stability, and workplace flexibility, retention remains uneven.”
“Providing access is great but what matters more is not just admissions,” Prof. Das famous, “but whether these students survive the competition, perform well, and move ahead in STEM pathways.” “Training them, providing the right knowledge and making them fully ready for long-term success is the next step,” he added. “While JNU’s approach appears flexible, it would benefit from a clearly defined review mechanism to assess outcomes and recalibrate over time. Such measures should ideally function as temporary corrections rather than permanent fixtures.”
“So admission should be measured not merely by intake numbers but by how many women continue into research, higher studies, or industry roles.” He emphasised.
The bigger query
India’s ambitions in science and expertise rely not solely on producing expertise but additionally sustaining them. The main problem just isn’t merely to widen the pipeline however to stop it from leaking.
JNU’s choice now matches between the intersection of two mammoth realities. On the one hand, it emphasizes a mandatory corrective to historic imbalances in entry. While additionally underscoring the boundaries of interventions that focus totally on entry factors.
Prof. Das echoed this concern and stated, “This is like addressing the last stage of a much longer problem.” “Real change, he argued, will depend on broader steps that happen before students even reach universities, or making alterations in the system that allow them to stay, grow, and lead. Until then, policies like supernumerary seats may serve as important signals of intent but their success will ultimately be judged not by how many enter, but by how many remain.”
(Uttkarsha Shekhar is an impartial journalist whose pursuits span defence, science, surroundings, training, leisure and vogue.)