Industry2026-10-07·7 min read

India's Library and Information Science Programs Have a Digital Evaluation Blind Spot

With over 250 LIS departments across India facing NAAC and UGC compliance pressures, the field that teaches information management is paradoxically one of the last to digitise its own examination processes.

The Irony at the Heart of Library Science Education

Library and Information Science (LIS) as a discipline is built around the organisation, preservation, and retrieval of information. It trains professionals to think about metadata, access systems, digital repositories, and information governance. And yet, across India's university departments and standalone LIS colleges, a significant number of annual and semester examinations are still evaluated using entirely manual, paper-based processes.

This contradiction is not merely academic. Under NEP 2020 implementation requirements, UGC minimum standards, and the revised NAAC Binary accreditation framework, LIS programs — like every other discipline — are expected to demonstrate automated assessment systems and digitised examination workflows. The field's own subject expertise offers no exemption from the compliance calendar.

The Scale of the Sector

India has approximately 260 to 280 universities offering BLISc (Bachelor of Library and Information Science), MLISc, or integrated LIS programs, according to estimates from the Library Association of India. At least 40 to 50 institutions offer standalone diploma or bachelor programs in library science as their primary academic offering.

These institutions range from well-resourced central universities like Aligarh Muslim University and Jadavpur University — both of which have moved toward digital examination infrastructure — to small affiliated colleges in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Odisha that are still relying on evaluators to physically handle paper answer books.

The student population is not insignificant. With approximately 70,000 to 80,000 LIS students enrolled annually, and annual examination volumes running into hundreds of thousands of answer books, the sector represents a meaningful chunk of India's higher education examination workload.

Why LIS Programs Have Lagged in Digital Adoption

Several structural factors explain why digital evaluation adoption has been slower in LIS than in engineering or management programs:

Small department size. Most university LIS departments have 5 to 15 faculty members and enrol fewer than 100 students per batch. The per-student cost of implementing a full digital evaluation infrastructure appears higher when spread over a smaller base, even though most of these institutions share affiliating university examination systems that already bear the platform cost.

Absence of professional accreditation pressure. Engineering colleges face NBA accreditation deadlines with specific technology requirements. Medical colleges face NMC compliance cycles. LIS programs, while subject to NAAC, do not face a discipline-specific accreditor that mandates digital examination systems, reducing the urgency of adoption.

Lower examination volume visibility. In a university that also runs engineering, science, and commerce faculties, the LIS department's annual examination volume may represent under 1% of total answer books. Technology procurement decisions are made at the institutional level, and smaller departments can be deprioritised.

Lack of sector-specific guidance. The Library Association of India and UGC's LIS Education Division have not issued sector-specific guidance on digital evaluation standards, leaving individual institutions to navigate general UGC and NAAC frameworks without tailored support.

What the NAAC Framework Requires

Under the revised Binary accreditation system, all programs within an institution — not just the headline faculty — must demonstrate compliance with Criterion 2.5's examination reform metrics. An institution cannot claim strong examination automation in its engineering programs and wave away LIS as an exception.

NAAC Criterion 2.5.1 asks for the percentage of examinations conducted using ICT-enabled tools. Criterion 2.5.2 looks at the proportion of examination processes where IT is integrated, including result processing, mark submission, and grievance handling. For LIS departments to contribute positively to their parent institution's Criterion 2.5 scores, their examination processes need to mirror those of the larger university.

In practice, this means LIS programs need:

Digital submission and verification of internal assessment marks

Scanned answer sheet evaluation through the affiliating university's OSM system (where available)

Online result publication and revaluation request handling

IQAC-ready documentation of examination reforms in AQAR reports

For standalone LIS colleges applying for Binary accreditation independently, the entire evidence burden falls on the institution's own examination systems — there is no larger engineering or science faculty to carry the Criterion 2.5 score.

The Subject-Specific Challenges

LIS examination papers have characteristics that OSM implementations must account for:

Diagrammatic answers. Classification and cataloguing papers routinely require students to construct MARC records, DDC classification trees, and information system flowcharts. High-resolution scanning is essential to ensure evaluators can read these accurately on screen.

Long-form bibliographic assignments. Reference management and indexing papers often include extended annotation tasks where handwritten text runs across multiple lines with tight spacing. Screen-optimised evaluation interfaces that allow zooming and multi-page navigation matter more here than in multiple-choice-heavy subjects.

Bilingual answer scripts. LIS programs at affiliated colleges in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Maharashtra, and Bengal often attract students who mix English technical terminology with their regional language in explanatory text. Evaluators need this rendering to be clear and legible on screen.

None of these are insurmountable technical challenges. They are, however, specific requirements that LIS program heads should raise with their affiliating university's examination technology teams when the institution prepares for OSM rollout.

The Opportunity: LIS as a Digital Evaluation Advocate

There is a version of this story where Library and Information Science becomes a sector leader rather than a laggard.

LIS professionals understand digital repository design, metadata standards, access control, and information lifecycle management. These are directly applicable to the architecture of examination management systems. Departments that engage proactively with their university's examination digitisation projects — offering expertise in data organisation, document management workflows, and user access protocols — have something valuable to contribute.

Some LIS faculty at Osmania University and the Documentation Research and Training Centre (DRTC) at ISI Bangalore have already done quiet work in this direction, contributing to institutional repositories and examination record digitalisation projects. This expertise deserves a more prominent platform in the current national examination reform conversation.

Practical Steps for LIS Program Directors in 2026

With odd-semester examinations approaching and NAAC cycles accelerating, LIS program heads should act on the following before December 2026:

Contact the Controller of Examinations to confirm whether the LIS department is included in the institution's OSM rollout or whether it remains on manual evaluation

Register internal assessment records digitally — even if terminal evaluation is still pending migration, IA records should be in the institutional examination management system immediately

Prepare a subject-specific scanning protocol — work with the examination cell to establish minimum scanning resolution (300 DPI minimum) and page-handling specifications for cataloguing and classification answer books

Document the current state for AQAR — the IQAC report for 2026-27 must include an honest assessment of where LIS examination processes sit on the digital adoption spectrum and a roadmap for closure

Engage with the Library Association of India to advocate for sector-specific digital examination guidance — the absence of such guidance is itself a gap the sector can address

The Cost of Further Delay

India's examination governance environment in 2026 is not patient with institutional inertia. The UGC's digital examination guidelines, NAAC's automated data verification, and the Nilekani Task Force's technology mandate for examination platforms are all pointing toward accelerated compliance timelines.

LIS programs that remain on manual evaluation in 2027 will find their institutions' NAAC Criterion 2.5 scores dragged down by the gap. Standalone LIS colleges applying for Binary accreditation will face peer team scrutiny of examination reform evidence that simply does not exist if their answer books are still being physically bundled and transported to evaluators.

The discipline that knows how to build information systems should not be among the last to have one.