Why the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025 Has Reignited the Debate on Centralisation in Higher Education

The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, introduced in the Lok Sabha and now referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), seeks to fundamentally restructure how higher education is regulated in India. By proposing a single overarching commission that subsumes multiple regulators, the Bill revives an idea debated — and resisted — for nearly four decades. Whether it becomes a long-awaited reform or a flashpoint over federalism and autonomy will depend on how its details evolve.

What the Bill seeks to create

At the heart of the Bill is the proposed “Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan”, a new higher education commission structured around three distinct but coordinated councils:

• A “Regulatory Council” (Viksit Bharat Shiksha Viniyaman Parishad) to authorise institutions to grant degrees
• A “Standards Council” (Viksit Bharat Shiksha Manak Parishad) to prescribe learning outcomes and faculty qualifications
• An “Accreditation Council” (Viksit Bharat Shiksha Gunvatta Parishad) to design and oversee accreditation frameworks

Together, these bodies would absorb the functions of the existing regulators — the University Grants Commission, the All India Council for Technical Education, and the National Council for Teacher Education.

Which institutions fall under its ambit

The Bill applies to almost the entire higher education ecosystem: central and state universities, deemed universities, private universities, and Institutions of National Importance (INIs) such as the Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management, National Institutes of Technology, and IISERs.

Medical, legal, dental, pharmaceutical and veterinary education remain outside its scope, as they are governed by separate statutory bodies. Appointments to the new councils will be made by the President on the recommendation of the Central government, with limited rotational representation for states and Union Territories.

How this changes the current regulatory architecture

India’s higher education regulation is presently fragmented. The UGC authorises degree-granting institutions and sets academic standards; the AICTE oversees technical education; and the NCTE regulates teacher education. Accreditation is handled separately by bodies such as NAAC and NBA, and some elite institutions have stayed outside accreditation altogether.

The Bill seeks to collapse this multi-layered system into a single framework, arguing that overlap between regulators has led to confusion and contradictory norms. Significantly, while the existing UGC and AICTE can disburse grants, the new regulatory council will not — funding will be routed directly through the Education Ministry.

Why funding provisions are drawing concern

This shift departs from earlier reform proposals, including the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which envisaged a separate, arm’s-length body for funding. Under the new Bill, rule-making, accreditation, and funding oversight all converge closer to the Ministry.

Critics argue this could undermine institutional autonomy. Teachers’ bodies such as the Federation of Central Universities Teachers’ Associations have warned that direct ministerial control over grants may increase leverage over universities, particularly those that rely heavily on public funding.

A familiar idea with a troubled legislative history

The concept of a single apex regulator is not new. It appeared in the 1986 National Policy on Education, the National Knowledge Commission (2005), and most concretely in the Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011. That Bill — introduced under the UPA government — was withdrawn in 2014 after a parliamentary committee flagged risks to India’s federal structure.

A similar draft in 2018 met the same fate amid protests over excessive centralisation. The NEP 2020 revived the proposal in principle, but implementation was deferred until the current Bill.

Does one regulator solve the problem of overlap?

Supporters of the Bill argue that merging regulators like the UGC and AICTE could eliminate conflicting directives and create uniform standards. Former regulators have pointed out that technical education has often suffered from dual compliance requirements.

At the same time, educationists caution that technical and professional education has developed complex specialisations that risk being diluted if folded into a single regulatory mould. Much will depend on whether the new commission creates robust internal verticals rather than enforcing one-size-fits-all norms.

The autonomy question and Institutions of National Importance

Bringing INIs under a common regulatory framework is among the most sensitive aspects of the Bill. These institutions were established through Acts of Parliament precisely to insulate them from routine regulation. Subjecting them to a new regulator, even one framed as facilitative, may provoke resistance and legal scrutiny.

Administratively, absorbing a regulator as large and complex as AICTE is itself a major undertaking — one that will test the Centre’s capacity to manage scale without bureaucratic overload.

Why the JPC stage matters

By referring the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee, Parliament has opened space for scrutiny, consultation, and possible course correction. Past experience shows that higher education reforms falter when concerns over autonomy and federal balance are not addressed upfront.

The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill promises clarity, consistency, and simplification. Whether it delivers these without concentrating excessive power at the Centre will determine if it becomes a cornerstone of reform — or another ambitious idea stalled by distrust.