Barkatullah University (BU), located in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, recently achieved a significant milestone—an “A” grade accreditation from the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) in 2025. This accreditation is widely regarded as a mark of quality assurance in Indian higher education, signaling excellent academic standards, effective governance, robust research activities, and well-maintained infrastructure. The achievement was publicly congratulated by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh and Chancellor of State Universities, Mangubhai Patel, accentuating the university’s rising stature on the regional and national academic map.

Yet, while this accomplishment is celebrated by many stakeholders, it has sparked a contrasting reaction among the student community. A vocal group of current students and some alumni have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the university’s functioning and the validity of the “A” grade itself. They argue that the accreditation process overlooked persistent and serious problems inside the university campus—ranging from poor attendance to deteriorating infrastructure and a severe shortage of permanent faculty. Their public challenge questions whether the grade truly reflects the lived reality of academic life at BU.

Established in 1970 and named after the freedom fighter Barkatullah, BU is one of Madhya Pradesh’s premier institutions offering a wide array of undergraduate, postgraduate, and professional courses across arts, commerce, science, and technology disciplines. The university’s sprawling campus of approximately 400 acres situates it amidst Bhopal’s educational landscape as a significant hub for higher learning.

NAAC, an autonomous body established by the University Grants Commission (UGC), is mandated to assess and accredit universities and colleges across India to ensure adherence to quality norms. Its accreditation grades range from “D” (lowest) to “A++” (highest), based on multiple parameters including curricular aspects, teaching-learning processes, research output, infrastructure, student support, governance, and innovations.

BU’s previous NAAC grade had been a “B,” reflecting average fulfillment of quality benchmarks. The upgrade to “A” in 2025 symbolizes notable institutional progress. Such a grade often brings benefits like increased public trust, eligibility for enhanced government funding and grants, attraction of quality faculty and students, and elevated prospects for academic partnerships and research projects.

Student Concerns: The Reality Behind the Grade

Despite the celebratory official stance, the student community’s challenge cannot be overlooked. Multiple students, including representatives from academic and alumni groups, have come forward with complaints exposing a disparity between the university’s official accreditation image and the everyday academic environment.

1. Low Attendance and Academic Engagement

Students report poor attendance in many classes, attributing it to uninspiring teaching methods, disengaging curricula, and a lack of motivational academic culture. This absenteeism compromises learning outcomes and undermines the quality promised by the “A” grade.

2. Infrastructure Deficiencies

The physical infrastructure is described as aging and poorly maintained. Many buildings and classrooms are in dire need of renovation. Laboratories crucial for science and technology courses lack essential equipment and resources, impeding practical learning and research activities. Such conditions are counterproductive to fostering a scholarly atmosphere conducive to academic excellence.

3. Faculty Shortages and Temporary Staffing

Perhaps the most critical issue is the shortage of permanent faculty. Since 2014, the process of recruiting permanent teachers has remained stalled, resulting in over half of sanctioned posts remaining vacant. To fill gaps, the university relies heavily on guest lecturers and temporary teachers, who often have limited commitment and experience. This impacts teaching quality, mentorship, and consistent delivery of academic programs.

4. The NAAC Assessment Process Questioned

Students question whether the NAAC inspection adequately captured this reality. Some allege that temporary cosmetic improvements were made on campus especially ahead of the NAAC visit, giving a misleading impression of preparedness and quality. Furthermore, they were not allowed direct interaction with the NAAC assessment team, restricting their voice in the evaluation process.

Perspectives from University Administration and Authorities

The university administration, led by Vice Chancellor Suresh Kumar Jain, has welcomed the “A” grade as validation of their long-term efforts in improving the institution. They emphasize infrastructural upgrades, digital transformation initiatives, and academic reforms implemented during recent years.

However, the administration has yet to publicly engage deeply with the students’ grievances or announce concrete plans addressing their concerns. This communication gap has added to the campus tension, with demands increasing for transparent dialogue and remedial strategies.

The Role and Limitations of NAAC Accreditation

While NAAC accreditation remains a crucial benchmark, it is important to recognize its procedural and institutional limitations. NAAC’s evaluation predominantly depends on documentation, infrastructural audits, faculty credentials, research publications, and academic outputs over a defined period. Although it involves campus visits and interactions, the depth and inclusiveness of such evaluations can vary.

Therefore, there is room for occasional discrepancies between accreditation grades and the holistic quality of the student experience. Continuous post-accreditation monitoring and engagement with university stakeholders, especially students, are essential for ensuring sustained quality improvements.

Implications for Students, University, and Policymakers

The discord between an “A” grade and reported academic challenges poses several significant implications:

• For Students: The immediate impact is on the quality of education and campus life. Poor teaching, infrastructure gaps, and lack of stable faculty negatively affect learning, skills development, and future career prospects.

• For University Reputation: A prestigious NAAC grade elevates the university’s profile, but failure to address underlying problems risks reputation erosion, student dissatisfaction, and decreased competitiveness over time.

• For Policymakers and Regulators: The situation underscores the need for comprehensive evaluation criteria that include student feedback and on-ground realities. It also stresses the importance of enabling universities to overcome hurdles like recruitment delays and funding constraints.