A PhD progress report is a short account, submitted every semester, of what you planned, what you actually did, what you found and what you will do next, presented to your Research Advisory Committee (RAC) or Doctoral Committee (DC) for review and guidance. Clause 10(2) of the UGC 2022 PhD regulations makes it a national requirement, and the committee sends its recommendations to the university along with your report.
Below: the rules, how four universities apply them, a report outline, a worked example, the meeting itself, and what an “unsatisfactory” mark can lead to. This page covers the routine six-monthly reviews; the final presentation before submission has its own pre-submission seminar guide. Last reviewed September 2026.
What do the UGC 2022 regulations say about the RAC and progress reports?
Everything is in clause 10 of the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2022. Each scholar has a Research Advisory Committee, “or an equivalent body” defined in the institution’s statutes or ordinances, with the supervisor as convener. Under clause 10(1) it reviews the proposal and finalises the topic, guides the study design and methodology (and identifies any courses you must take), and periodically reviews and assists your progress.
Clause 10(2) creates the six-monthly routine: each semester you make a presentation and submit “a brief report on the progress of his/her work for evaluation and further guidance”. The committee sends its recommendations and your report to the institution, and you get a copy of the recommendations.
The regulations don’t say who the other members are, how long the report is or what form it takes. So the same body is an RAC at the University of Madras and a Doctoral Committee at Anna University, and the paperwork differs everywhere. Here is how four universities whose regulations we have read handle it:
| University | Committee | How often | If progress is poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anna University (R2025) | Doctoral Committee: supervisor as convener plus two experts chosen from panels the supervisor proposes (12.2, 12.4) | Online report every semester, required before paying the semester fee; committee review yearly after confirmation (15.1, 15.3) | Registration liable to cancellation if two semesters’ reports are missing or unsatisfactory (21.2 ii) |
| University of Madras (2021) | RAC: supervisor, head of department, a recognised supervisor from a neighbouring institution, co-supervisor if any (4.2) | Once in six months until thesis submission (4.4), plus an annual report with the continuation fee (5.5) | Scholar must follow the RAC’s recommendations (8.2) |
| Bharathiar University (2024–25) | Doctoral committee: supervisor, head of department, subject expert nominated by the Vice-Chancellor (section 7) | At least twice in the programme, at least 10 months apart | A wider research committee checks the corrective measures and may recommend cancellation |
| VTU (2023) | RAC: principal or department chairperson, head of department, a domain expert nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, supervisor as member convener (23PHD 3.4.1) | At least every six months; report due two weeks before the meeting (3.4.2, 7.1) | Cancellation after two consecutive unsatisfactory or missing reports, following a show-cause notice (7.2) |
Note how much room the UGC wording leaves: Bharathiar’s committee meets far less often than every semester. If your ordinance and the UGC text seem to disagree, ask the research cell which it follows. Our PhD timeline guide shows where these reviews fall across the programme.
What goes into a six-monthly PhD progress report?
Use your university’s form if it has one. Anna University’s is online: you start it, your supervisor verifies it and the supervisor’s competent authority approves it (R2025, clause 15.1). If you only have a blank page, the outline below works.
VTU’s 2023 regulations (23PHD 7.1) describe the content better than most: new data collected, techniques developed, progress in research, discussion of the work done in the period, new findings and a plan for future work, with any papers attached. Most committees want roughly that.
| Section of the report | What to write |
|---|---|
| Registration details | Name, registration number and date, mode, supervisor, period covered |
| Approved title and objectives | Copied exactly as approved |
| Plan for this period | The plan from the last section of your previous report |
| Work done | Against each planned item: done, partly done or not started, with evidence. This is the longest section |
| Results so far | Key findings with numbers, even preliminary ones, and a figure or table |
| Coursework status | Papers passed and grades, or what is pending. Drop it once coursework is over |
| Publications and conferences | Full references with status (submitted, under review, accepted, published) |
| Problems and proposed changes | What held you up, what you did, and any change to objectives, method or sample you want approved |
| Next six months | Specific tasks with target months |
| Supervisor’s remarks | Assessment and signatures, as your format requires |
| Attachments | Attendance or residence certificate, fellowship statements, copies of papers, where asked for |
What makes a progress report weak?
Reports that read like diaries (“Read 45 papers. Attended a workshop. Discussed with supervisor.”) give the committee little to assess.
Copy last time’s plan and put the outcome next to each line instead. Partly done is fine, and so is not started if you say why.
Keep coursework to a line (the details belong in our coursework guide). If your objectives have shifted, give the proposed change its own heading so it is discussed and minuted; an unapproved change tends to surface at the pre-submission stage. Our guide to research objectives explains which changes need formal approval.
Certificates
These depend on your university and funder. Anna University asks full-time scholars to attach an attested copy of their attendance register (clause 15.4); VTU has the committee endorse a residence-period certificate for part-time scholars. Fellowship holders usually need signed progress reports as well, and the JRF-to-SRF move depends on a review of your work (see our fellowships guide). Get the current checklist from the research cell, not a senior’s old copy.
Worked example: a one-page progress summary
Committee members read page one and skim the rest. Even if your full report runs to eight pages, open with a summary like this. The scholar and figures are invented to show the shape.
| Heading | What the scholar wrote (illustrative) |
|---|---|
| Scholar | R. Kavitha (fictional), full-time, Commerce. Registered January 2025. Report 3, January to June 2026. |
| Title | Adoption of UPI payments by small retailers in Madurai district: trust, cost and habit |
| Planned last time | 1. Finalise questionnaire after pilot. 2. Start main survey in three taluks. 3. Draft review chapter. 4. Submit review paper. |
| Done | 1. Done: pilot with 40 retailers, two items dropped after reliability check. 2. Partly done: 190 of about 380 planned responses, two taluks. 3. Done, with supervisor. 4. Not done: drafted, not submitted. |
| Early findings | Trust in settlement seems to matter more than transaction cost. Too early to test hypotheses. |
| Publications | One paper presented at a national seminar, March 2026. |
| Problems | Survey slowed in April and May (festival season, shop owners busy). Third taluk not started. |
| Change requested | Replace the third taluk with a neighbouring one where access is easier, keeping the sample size. No change to objectives. |
| Next six months | Review paper submitted in July. Survey complete by October. Data cleaned by November. Method chapter drafted by December. |
| Supervisor’s remarks | Satisfactory. Behind plan for a genuine reason; revised schedule is realistic. |
Every planned item has an outcome, the shortfall has a reason, and the change request is narrow enough to approve in one line of the minutes. If your supervisor’s remark wouldn’t match your account, settle that before the meeting, not in front of the external expert.
Being a semester behind is normal. Not admitting it is what worries committees.
How do you present at an RAC or DC meeting?
Ask your supervisor how long you get. Fifteen to twenty minutes plus questions is common, though some committees just talk through the report with no slides. Where slides are expected, 10 to 15 is plenty: title and period covered; approved objectives; last meeting’s recommendations and what you did about each; plan versus progress as a table; four to six slides of results by objective; publications; problems and requested changes; the next six months.
Never skip the slide on last meeting’s recommendations. Members remember what they asked for.
Questions you can expect, in some form:
- Why is this behind plan, and is the new timeline realistic?
- How did you arrive at this sample size (or these parameters, or this dataset)?
- What is new compared with the closest published study?
- Can you finish within your registration period?
Bring the data file or lab notebook; when a member doubts a number, opening the file settles it.
What if the committee is critical of your work?
Write each objection down in the member’s words. Then sort it: a real flaw to fix, a preference you can meet with little effort, or a suggestion that would change the project. Agree to the first two in the room. For the third, say you will examine it with your supervisor and report back next time, rather than promising something that adds a year.
Ask the department office for the recommendations if they don’t reach you (clause 10(2) says you get a copy), and turn each one into a line of your next plan.
If the real problem is between you and your supervisor, the committee is a proper place to raise it calmly; VTU even lists resolving supervisor–scholar conflict among the RAC’s duties (23PHD 3.4.2). Where the relationship can’t be repaired, read our guide to changing your PhD supervisor first.
What happens if your progress is marked unsatisfactory?
One unsatisfactory report doesn’t end a PhD. Clause 10(3) of the UGC 2022 regulations sets a sequence: the RAC “shall record the reasons for the same and suggest corrective measures”, and only if you fail to implement them may it recommend, with specific reasons, cancelling your registration.
Universities add their own steps:
- Anna University R2025 lets the Director (Research) cancel a registration if two semesters’ reports are not submitted or not satisfactory (21.2 ii), or if the Doctoral Committee finds performance unsatisfactory and recommends cancellation (21.2 iv).
- VTU (2023) lets the RAC recommend cancellation after two consecutive unsatisfactory or missing reports, but only after a show-cause notice; you can then appeal through the Registrar to the Vice-Chancellor (23PHD 7.2).
- Bharathiar University sends the case to a wider research committee, including the Dean and Board of Studies chairpersons, which checks whether you carried out the corrective measures.
So get the reasons and corrective measures in writing, agree a dated plan with your supervisor, and make the next report show each measure done. Attend the next meeting as planned: under the rules above, a missing report counts against you as much as a poor one. Fellowship holders should check the funder’s rules too.
Sources
- UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2022 (PDF), clause 10
- Anna University, Regulations for Doctor of Philosophy R2025 (PDF), clauses 12, 15 and 21
- University of Madras, Research Regulations 2021 (PDF), sections 4, 5 and 8
- Bharathiar University, Ph.D. Regulations 2024–25 (PDF), section 7
- Visvesvaraya Technological University, PhD Regulations 2023 (PDF), clauses 23PHD 3.4 and 7
FAQ
Questions scholars ask
Is the RAC the same as the Doctoral Committee?
In function, yes. The UGC 2022 regulations allow a Research Advisory Committee “or an equivalent body”. Anna University and Bharathiar University say Doctoral Committee; the University of Madras and VTU say RAC. Membership varies.
How long should a PhD progress report be?
The UGC regulations ask for a brief report. A few pages plus attachments, opened by a one-page summary, is typical; a university form decides for you.
Do part-time scholars submit progress reports every six months?
Yes; clause 10(2) applies to every scholar. Some universities add conditions: VTU marks a part-time scholar’s half-yearly report not satisfactory if the residence period has not been met.
What if my RAC meeting is not held on time?
Tell your supervisor and the research cell in writing and keep a copy, and submit your report on schedule anyway. Anna University’s R2025 (clause 12.6) allows a member who does not respond to meeting requests to be replaced at the supervisor’s request.
Is the progress report the same as the synopsis?
No. The progress report covers one period. The synopsis sets out the whole research, at registration or before submission; see our synopsis format guide.
