Structural Overhaul
The introduction of the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill in the Lok Sabha is a significant restructuring of India’s higher-education governance in decades. By proposing a single overarching commission with three specialised councils for regulation, accreditation and academic standards, the Bill seeks to end the long-criticised fragmentation of India’s higher-education oversight. At present, the University Grants Commission, the All India Council for Technical Education and the National Council for Teacher Education operate in silos, often duplicating functions, issuing overlapping regulations and creating compliance burdens for universities. In theory, replacing these bodies with a unified architecture aligns with the National Education Policy 2020’s promise of “light but tight” regulation. The ambition is clear: reduce bureaucratic clutter, harmonise standards across disciplines and allow institutions greater academic flexibility while maintaining accountability. Yet the magnitude of this reform demands close scrutiny, not only of what the Bill dismantles, but of what it concentrates in its place.
A defining feature of the proposed Adhishthan is its sweeping jurisdiction. It will cover central universities and colleges, as well as institutes of national importance such as IITs, IIMs, NITs, IISc, IISERs and IIITs—institutions that have historically enjoyed significant autonomy. The Bill envisages three councils under the commission: the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Viniyaman Parishad as the common regulator, the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Gunvatta Parishad for accreditation, and the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Manak Parishad for setting academic standards. Conceptually, separating these functions makes sense. Regulation, accreditation and standard-setting require different competencies and mindsets, and their conflation has often produced rigid controls rather than quality enhancement. However, the success of this separation will depend on how independent these councils truly are in practice, and whether they function as professional bodies guided by academic judgment rather than as extensions of the executive.
That concern becomes sharper when one examines the composition and appointment structure outlined in the Bill. The commission will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, along with 12 members appointed in the same manner. Each council will be led by a president, also appointed by the President, with council members selected on the recommendation of a search-cum-selection committee of the central government. The President retains the power to remove the chairperson, council presidents and members for dereliction of duty. While constitutional propriety is maintained through presidential appointments, the heavy imprint of the executive raises questions about autonomy. Higher education thrives on academic freedom, peer evaluation and institutional independence. Concentrating appointment and removal powers risks creating a system where regulatory discretion is vulnerable to political priorities, however well-intentioned. If universities begin to perceive the commission as an instrument of control rather than facilitation, the reform could undermine precisely the innovation and excellence it seeks to promote.
One of the Bill’s more thoughtful elements is the explicit separation of funding from regulation. By keeping the disbursal of grants to centrally funded institutions outside the purview of the Adhishthan and vesting it with mechanisms devised by the Ministry of Education, the Bill follows the NEP 2020’s principle that financial control should not distort academic oversight. This could, if implemented well, reduce conflicts of interest and allow regulators to focus on quality rather than compliance tied to grants. However, this separation also introduces coordination challenges. Without transparent, predictable funding mechanisms insulated from political discretion, institutions may find themselves navigating new uncertainties even as old regulators disappear. Ultimately, the Bill’s promise will be judged not by its architecture alone but by its execution—by whether it genuinely simplifies regulation, protects institutional autonomy and raises academic standards, or merely replaces three regulators with a more powerful centralised authority. India’s aspiration to become a global knowledge hub demands reform, but it also demands restraint. The success of the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan will rest on whether it empowers universities to think freely, teach boldly and compete globally, rather than merely regulating them more efficiently.
