The Vikasit Bharat Shiksha Adhisthan Bill, introduced by Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan in the Lok Sabha on December 15, has far-reaching implications for the country’s higher education sector. The bill proposes the creation of a new commission that would replace existing regulatory bodies. However, the government has so far failed to initiate any meaningful public discussion on the gravity of the proposed changes. The bill seeks to abolish the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE), bringing the functions of all three under a single regulatory authority. According to the government, this consolidation is intended to place higher education under a unified framework and facilitate reforms aligned with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The proposed legislation also includes provisions to simplify regulations by standardising norms and to penalise institutions that violate them through the imposition of hefty fines. Following concerns and criticisms raised in the House, the bill has now been referred to a 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee for detailed examination and reconsideration. While the government maintains that this referral will allow for a thorough review, it remains unclear to what extent dissenting views and objections will be addressed. There are apprehensions that, as in the case of the Waqf Bill — earlier referred to a committee — the legislation may eventually be pushed through without adequately considering alternative perspectives.
Also read: Hindutva rightwing outfits want Muslims shifted from J&K university
The principal merit highlighted by the government is that the bill would eliminate the complexities arising from multiple regulatory bodies overseeing higher education, while decentralising functions such as institutional regulation, accreditation, and quality assessment. Under the proposed commission, three separate bodies will be constituted for specific functions: one to oversee regulation (Viniyaman), another to handle accreditation, and a third to set benchmarks for educational standards (Shiksha Manak). None of these committees will have financial powers. Unlike the existing UGC system, the allocation of funds will rest entirely with the central government. The commission’s chairperson and its 12 members will be appointed by the President.
Also read: UP madrassa students shift to universities after SC scraps Kamil-Fazil degrees
Several provisions of the new bill have already attracted criticism. Beyond Opposition objections raised in Parliament, teachers and academic communities have also voiced serious concerns. While the stated objectives include granting greater autonomy to institutions, reducing bureaucratic hurdles, and fostering academic excellence, critics argue that the reforms effectively undermine the autonomy of states in education by concentrating authority at the Centre. The Centre’s overarching role is evident in its advisory role to the President in appointing members to the three committees under the proposed commission. It also retains the final authority in resolving disputes and exercises complete control over funding decisions. Critics warn that such centralisation opens the door to political interference, particularly in a system where the ruling party at the Centre may view opposition-ruled states as adversaries, favour politically aligned states, or use fund allocation as a tool for electoral gain.
Also read: Kerala University professor booked for casteist remarks against PhD scholar
The bill explicitly states that the proposed commission will function under the central government, rendering the claim of an “independent” commission largely illusory. Education falls under the Concurrent List of the Constitution, granting both the Centre and the states the power to legislate. However, in the event of a conflict, the Centre’s writ will prevail. Critics argue that the government is exploiting this constitutional asymmetry to systematically erode states’ role in higher education, as it has done in several other policy domains. Such centralisation leaves little room for diversity. When the BJP-led Sangh Parivar government invokes the broad notion of “developing Indian knowledge systems,” critics contend that it often translates into privileging Hindu sources over other traditions. At a time when the country still needs to deepen efforts — politically and legally — to accommodate cultural and regional diversity and to strengthen states’ freedom of action, the bill is seen as moving in the opposite direction.