CAG Questions IIM Rohtak Fee Setting, Budgets and Faculty Incentives

A Comptroller and Auditor General review of IIM Rohtak has questioned how the institute set student fees, paid faculty incentives and constituted key governing bodies. The audit, released on August 12, says the institute stopped preparing annual budgets after 2017-18 even as its average fee and academic receipts rose substantially.

According to the report, the average annual fee per student increased from Rs 6.40 lakh in 2018-19 to Rs 8.64 lakh in 2023-24, a rise of 35 per cent. Over the same period, receipts from the Post Graduate Programme in Management, Integrated Programme in Management and Integrated Programme in Law grew from Rs 31.57 crore to Rs 125.91 crore—almost four times the earlier figure.

The CAG’s concern is not that a fee can never rise. It is that the institute did not produce the annual budget needed to estimate expenditure and align revenue with actual requirements. The audit said persistent surpluses and the absence of a documented fee-setting framework sat uneasily with the IIM Act’s not-for-profit and affordability mandate.

IIM Rohtak responded that it has been self-financing since 2019, keeps fees among the lower levels across IIMs, funds capital expenditure internally and provides merit scholarships to around 15 per cent of students. The CAG maintained that self-financing does not remove the statutory requirement to prepare budgets. It recommended a long-term financial and academic plan to guide fees and strategy.

The audit also examined Rs 7.49 crore paid to faculty as incentives and honoraria. It said Rs 4.11 crore covered extra teaching, executive education and consultancy, while Rs 3.38 crore covered work such as admissions and evaluation. In six cases, payments exceeded the recipient’s regular salary. The report argued that the regulations did not define sufficiently clear limits and that beneficiaries took part in meetings that shaped some entitlements.

High-value devices and fitness equipment worth Rs 58.32 lakh were also provided in 2020-21 and 2021-22. IIM Rohtak said devices issued during the pandemic were for official use, their value was treated as taxable income and policies were approved by the board. The CAG said the institute did not produce ministry norms authorising the payments or distribution of such items.

Governance findings extended beyond finance. Auditors reported gaps in reserved-category faculty data, missing recruitment records, irregularities in the composition and terms of the Board of Governors, and an academic council without the external experts required by law. The institute said it had undertaken special recruitment efforts; the report said documentary support was not supplied for several claims.

An audit finding is not a criminal conviction, and institutional responses must be read with the observations. What the report establishes is a set of documented control failures that now require action from the institute, its board and the education ministry. Recoveries or rule changes should follow due process and be disclosed.

For students, the central issue is whether fee decisions reflect an approved academic and financial plan, with meaningful aid for those who cannot pay. For faculty, it is whether compensation rules are prospective, bounded and decided without conflict. IIM Rohtak can answer both concerns by publishing budgets, board-approved plans and follow-up action on the audit. Autonomy is strongest when accompanied by records that withstand scrutiny.