New Delhi: While the Centre went ahead and tabled the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill 2025 in Parliament Monday, educationists are divided over its potential impact, with some praising the promise of efficiency and global alignment, and others warning it could undermine institutional autonomy and increase Centre’s control over institutions.
The Bill proposes an overarching Higher Education Commission, called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan, and three regulatory councils. But amid the Opposition’s concerns over institutional autonomy and excessive centralisation, the government Tuesday referred the Bill to a joint parliamentary committee.
The Bill, which has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, proposes to repeal the present day University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).
ThePrint explains how the proposed legislation is set to change the current system of higher education, and what experts have to say about it.
According to the Bill, the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan will be an overarching commission which will work as a coordinator between three councils—the regulatory council, accreditation council, and standards council. As the name suggests, the proposed regulatory council will take over the roles currently performed by the UGC, AICTE, and NCTE, effectively subsuming all three bodies under a single authority.
Also Read: NEP meets reality, DU to Motihari: Godown campus, research without labs, no space for 4-yr degrees
Technical, non-technical education under one umbrella
Currently, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education, while the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education.
According to experts, putting technical and non-technical education under the same regulator is a global phenomenon. For instance, in Australia, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) regulates both technical and non-technical education.
Dinesh Singh, former Vice-Chancellor of Delhi University, said there is an unnecessary division between technical and non-technical education. “Education is education, and compartmentalising it into technical, non-technical, and teacher education was not a good idea. It created many problems. The National Education Policy 2020 has advocated for transdisciplinary education, and this Bill will help achieve that,” he told ThePrint.
Giving an example, a senior official in the Ministry of Education said that currently, if a university wants to start an engineering college, it must seek permission from the AICTE while the university itself is under the UGC. “For accreditation, general courses go through NAAC, and engineering courses through NBA. There were many agencies involved, creating confusion. Under the new Bill, all this overlap and duplication will be eliminated.”
Additionally, the proposed accreditation council will subsume the functions of both NAAC and NBA, which are currently accrediting institutions and technical programmes, respectively. Meanwhile, the standards council will take over the roles additionally performed by the UGC and AICTE in determining curriculum standards and learning outcomes for higher education institutions.
Professor V. Ramgopal Rao, former Director IIT-Delhi and group vice chancellor BITS Pilani, said the Bill has the potential to bring much needed clarity by simplifying a fragmented regulatory landscape. “If implemented in the right spirit, it can reduce duplication, improve predictability, and allow institutions to focus on academic quality, research depth, and global engagement rather than compliance driven processes,” he said.
Change in funding mechanism
The Bill does not give the commission or its three councils the power to fund higher education institutions.
Currrently, this authority is with the UGC under Section 12 of the UGC Act, 1956, which empowers it to allocate grants to universities and colleges, central and state universities, for development, research, and maintaining academic standards.
Under the new Bill, the power to fund higher education institutions will remain directly with the Union Ministry of Education, raising concerns about the autonomy of HEIs—particularly central universities, which are entirely dependent on government funding.
NEP 2020 had suggested a funding body under the proposed higher education commission, it has not found place in the Bill.
In a statement Tuesday, the Union Ministry of Education clarified that while the proposed higher education commission and its councils will not fund universities directly, their feedback on institutional performance will help determine the amount of funding a university receives. Officials at the ministry said that the funding part was not included in the commission to avoid “conflict of interest”.
Nadita Narain, former professor at Delhi University’s St. Stephen’s College, said giving the Ministry of Education overarching authority to fund central and state institutions is a major concern among academics.
“At present, the UGC acts as a buffer between the government and universities, ensuring that funding is not influenced by ideological or political considerations. Now, with the commission providing feedback on how much funding should be allocated, it could become unpredictable, as the feedback may vary based on numerous factors. It will kind of lead to centralisation,” she told ThePrint.
Earlier Monday, the Federation of Central Universities Teachers’ Association, which has members from across central universities, also raised concerns over the funding aspect. “Direct control of funding by the Ministry of Education is not a guarantee of necessary finances. It increases the scope for government control over the universities and undermines their autonomy…” the association said in a statement.
A former UGC chairperson also raised concerns over giving the central government the power to supersede the commission and its councils if they are perceived to be failing in their duties or not complying with government directions.
“Under the UGC Act, no such provision existed. While the government had the final say on policy matters, the ability to dismiss and reconstitute the commission or councils grants extraordinary powers to the ministry. In reality, this could significantly undermine their autonomy,” he told ThePrint, requesting anonymity.
Recognition for HEIs
While the UGC and AICTE had powers to withdraw recognition, funding, or approvals for non-compliance, the proposed regulatory council under the new Bill will have broader authority to penalise institutions, including stricter enforcement of standards and greater oversight across all higher education streams.
The regulatory council will be empowered to levy substantial fines on higher education institutions that violate the Act or its associated rules and regulations. Penalties will range from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of Rs 2 crore.
Professor Rao said stronger accountability mechanisms are long overdue. “Quality cannot be ensured without credible enforcement. The provision for penalties sends a clear message that governance, transparency, and academic standards matter. For private institutions, this should not be seen as punitive. Institutions that invest in faculty quality, robust systems, and ethical practices have nothing to fear from higher accountability.”
Professor Singh agreed, saying, “If norms are violated, there must be accountability. Establishing clear accountability is always welcome.”
Bringing IITs, IIMs under regulatory ambit
The Bill proposes that all Institutions of National Importance (INIs), including IITs and IIMs, will come under the purview of the commission, while ensuring that their granted autonomy is protected.
Currently, these institutions operate independently and are not governed by the UGC or AICTE. This provision has also sparked debate within the academic community.
A former director of one of the first-generation IITs said, “While the proposed Bill promises to safeguard autonomy, any regulation carries inherent risks. Currently, IITs independently design their curriculum and pedagogies. Under the regulatory commission, it is crucial that this autonomy remains fully protected and unaffected.”
Professor Rao also cautioned. “IITs are already working well and have built globally respected academic and research ecosystems over decades. What they need is greater autonomy, not additional regulatory hurdles. Adding more layers of oversight risks creating friction without real value addition. If they are brought into the framework at all, it should be through their active involvement in accreditation, peer review, and quality benchmarking. IITs must help shape the system, not be regulated by it,” he said.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: 1 regulator, 3 councils: Inside Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill for higher education overhaul