Shivanand Pandit
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 15, 2025, aims to make major changes to how higher education is governed in India. Although Opposition members opposed the bill at the time of its introduction—citing concerns about too much central control and its Hindi name—it was later sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for closer review.
The Bill aims to do away with three major laws that currently control higher education—the University Grants Commission Act, the AICTE Act, and the National Council for Teacher Education Act. Instead, it proposes creating a new top authority called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan. This authority will be supported by three separate councils to look after regulation, accreditation, and academic standards in higher education. These councils are the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Viniyaman Parishad, the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Gunvatta Parishad, and the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Manak Parishad. Importantly, the bill brings institutions of national importance such as the IITs, IIMs, NITs, and the IISc—earlier governed by separate laws—under a common regulatory system. However, it does not apply to institutions regulated by bodies like the Pharmacy Council of India, the Bar Council of India, the Veterinary Council of India, or the National Medical Commission.
This legislative proposal represents the most far-reaching reform of higher education oversight since the establishment of the UGC system. It is framed against persistent concerns about regulatory complexity, uneven institutional quality, and the limited global competitiveness of Indian universities. The new structure aims to separate strategic policymaking from operational functions, with the Adhishthan providing overarching direction while the three councils independently discharge their respective mandates. The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan is envisioned as a strategic, non-regulatory authority guiding long-term reforms in higher education. Its responsibilities include fostering multidisciplinary institutions, promoting India as an international education destination, strengthening research and innovation, and incorporating Bharatiya knowledge traditions into academic curricula. It will also coordinate the functioning of the councils and provide them with financial and policy support, while advising both the Centre and states on systemic reforms.
At present, higher education in India is regulated by several bodies with overlapping roles. The UGC looks after non-technical universities, the AICTE regulates technical education, and the NCTE oversees teacher education. This fragmented system has often led to delays in approvals, differing standards, and heavy compliance burdens. Despite having more than 1,300 universities and about 52,000 colleges, India’s gross enrolment ratio is only around 28%, and expansion in numbers has not resulted in matching improvements in quality or global rankings. The sector also faces persistent problems such as faculty shortages, uneven funding, and weak research capacity. A recent parliamentary panel report noted that as of January 2025, over half of all professor-level posts—the most senior academic positions—remain vacant across the higher education system, including in leading institutions like IITs and central universities. These shortages affect academic leadership, mentoring, and research productivity.
An assault on education, not reform
The Union Cabinet’s approval of the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhikshan Bill—earlier known as the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) Bill—marks a decisive turning point in India’s higher education policy, and not for the better. Marketed as a long-overdue reform to rationalise a “fragmented” regulatory structure, the legislation threatens to inflict irreparable damage on an already fragile academic ecosystem. By dismantling the UGC, AICTE, and NCTE and replacing them with a single super-regulator, the government claims it is enhancing autonomy, cutting red tape, and promoting excellence. In reality, the bill represents an unprecedented concentration of power, erosion of institutional autonomy, enforced commercialisation through debt-based financing, and the subordination of universities to direct political control. This is not reform. It is the consolidation of authority over India’s intellectual institutions, with profound consequences for academic freedom, social equity, and democratic life.
While the idea of reducing regulatory overlap is not inherently flawed, the structure of the proposed commission exposes its true intent. The new body will be dominated by senior bureaucrats, government nominees, and vice-chancellors selected through centrally controlled processes. Of the proposed 12–15 members, only two or three will be academics—and even they will be appointed by the government. This marks a clear regression from the UGC Act, which at least attempted to balance bureaucratic oversight with academic representation. Parliament’s Standing Committee itself warned in February 2025 that the bill would result in “excessive centralisation” and marginalisation of states. That warning was ignored. Section 15(3)(g) of the bill removes all ambiguity: the commission “shall be bound” by directions of the Central government, and in case of disagreement, the government’s decision will prevail. Regulatory autonomy becomes a fiction. Curriculum design, accreditation norms, fee structures, and even institutional recognition are brought under direct governmental authority.
Despite official claims, the bill drastically curtails the limited autonomy universities currently possess. Institutions that once had some freedom to shape curricula, appoint faculty, define research priorities, and manage administration will now operate under an intensely prescriptive regime. The commission will have sweeping powers to regulate fees, impose uniform standards irrespective of institutional context, revoke recognition, order closures, and impose criminal penalties—including imprisonment—for non-compliance, with minimal safeguards for appeal. This approach repeats and intensifies the very regulatory overreach criticised by the Yashpal Committee and the National Knowledge Commission, both of which warned that micromanagement stifles innovation without improving accountability. The new framework centralises these powers further and places them firmly under political influence. The consequences are predictable. Universities will avoid curricular experimentation, critical inquiry, and independent research for fear of regulatory retaliation. Rural and under-resourced institutions may face closure instead of support. Academic dissent becomes a liability when institutional survival depends on regulatory favour.
The most consequential change lies in the elimination of the UGC’s statutory grant-giving role. Public funding is replaced by debt. The Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) becomes the primary mechanism, compelling universities to borrow even for basic infrastructure and faculty recruitment. This debt-driven model forces institutions to behave like commercial enterprises—raising fees, expanding self-financed programmes, monetising campus services, and abandoning disciplines that do not generate revenue. The impact on equity will be devastating. Public universities are the principal pathway for students from SC, ST, OBC, and economically weaker backgrounds. Rising fees will either exclude them or trap them in education loans in an economy with limited employment opportunities. Disciplines such as humanities, social sciences, pure sciences, regional languages, and the arts—fields essential to critical thought and democratic culture—will be systematically marginalised. This is not accidental; it reflects an ideological preference for market-aligned knowledge over critical inquiry.
Education is a Concurrent List subject, yet the bill reduces states to spectators. Their representation on the commission is minimal, and they have little say in standards, accreditation, or funding. States with strong public university systems—Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, West Bengal—will now be governed by central mandates that ignore regional context, linguistic diversity, and local research priorities. This erodes not just administrative authority, but cultural and intellectual plurality. The rhetoric of “cooperative federalism” stands in stark contrast to the command-and-control model embedded in the bill.
The problems crippling Indian higher education are well known—and unrelated to regulatory multiplicity. They are chronic underfunding, with education expenditure stuck at around 3.1% of GDP, politicisation of academic appointments, casualisation and precarity of faculty positions, stagnation of research funding, systematic attacks on academic freedom and suppression of inconvenient data and evidence. The bill addresses none of these. Instead, it entrenches political control, intensifies financial insecurity, and multiplies compliance burdens.
A market-driven framework inevitably creates hierarchies among disciplines. Engineering, management, and applied sciences aligned with industrial priorities will flourish. Humanities, social sciences, philosophy, history, political science, and regional studies—disciplines that foster critical thinking and democratic citizenship—will be starved. The Yashpal Committee warned that innovation emerges at disciplinary intersections. The bill’s emphasis on standardisation, compliance, and revenue generation will suffocate such spaces. Universities will produce technicians rather than thinkers, credentials rather than knowledge. Claims of alignment with “global best practices” are hollow. The world’s leading universities thrive on autonomy, academic freedom, and insulation from political interference. What India is constructing more closely resembles higher education systems in authoritarian states.
A Better Path Forward
Genuine reform would mean increasing public spending on education to 6% of GDP; strengthening grant-based funding; safeguarding institutional autonomy; ensuring meaningful academic and state representation; protecting academic freedom; supporting institutions rather than punishing them; and basing policy on transparent, reliable data. The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhikshan Bill does the opposite. It centralises power, commercialises public education, weakens federalism, and subordinates knowledge to political objectives. The stakes could not be higher. This legislation threatens students with debt and exclusion, faculty with precarity and surveillance, institutions with loss of purpose, and society with the erosion of critical thought. Ultimately, it undermines democracy itself. This bill should meet the fate of its 2018 predecessor—withdrawal—and be replaced with reforms that strengthen education, uphold constitutional values, and serve the public good.
A unified regulatory framework has the potential to significantly improve India’s higher education system. However, any proposed solution must avoid becoming more problematic than the issue it aims to address. While the Bill grants the new regulatory body extensive powers, it must incorporate strong checks and balances to ensure it does not become an opaque, unpredictable, or authoritarian force that overrides institutions. The body should emphasize consultation and dialogue with all stakeholders, especially the states, fostering broad consensus on major decisions. This is particularly important since most higher educational institutions are under state control, either directly or indirectly, and states also contribute more funding to higher education than the Centre.
The regulatory body should focus on five critical areas. First, it must emphasize academic quality rather than administrative control, leaving day-to-day institutional management to the respective managements. Second, it should define a clear ‘circle of tolerance,’ offering support to institutions willing to improve while strictly penalizing those that consistently fail to meet standards. Third, it should encourage responsible investment rather than restrict it, enabling the establishment of high-quality institutions capable of attracting both domestic and international students. Fourth, it must maintain open and responsive communication with stakeholders, acting as a trusted guide and advisor. Fifth, decisions should be evidence-based, informed by unbiased research and real-world insights. The current practice of deploying punitive inspection teams undermines the dignity of institutions. Instead, the new regulator should rely more on proactive disclosures than inspections. Finally, the focus must shift to tangible academic, research, and employment outcomes, leveraging cutting-edge EdTech tools and AI-enabled pedagogies that are advancing rapidly.
What India truly needs is transformative action, not just another Act.
