NEW DELHI: In a move that can redefine the future of higher education governance in India, the Union Cabinet has approved the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhikshan Bill, paving the way for a single higher education regulator. The government has approved the creation of a new higher education regulator under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The new body will replace existing regulatory institutions i.e. the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).
The move marks one of the biggest structural reforms in India’s education system and it aims at bringing more clarity, transparency, and efficiency in the regulation of universities and colleges across the country. The unified regulator is expected to streamline decision-making, reduce overlapping functions of different bodies, and ensure better coordination in policy implementation.
For decades, India’s higher education sector has been governed by multiple bodies with overlapping mandates. While the UGC oversees non-technical higher education, AICTE regulates technical education, and NCTE monitors teacher training institutions. This multiplicity often led to confusion, bureaucratic delays, and inconsistent policy implementation at times. Thus the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhikshan aims to unify the regulatory framework, reduce duplication, and streamline governance. A reform long overdue in a sector that caters to over 40 million students across thousands of institutions.
The Bill, earlier known as the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) Bill, has been in discussion for years. A draft version was first released in 2018, proposing to repeal the UGC Act and replace it with a more progressive and performance-oriented framework. While that proposal faced delays and consultations, its core vision i.e. a simplified, transparent, and outcome-driven system has now been revived and refined.
The new Commission will have three key verticals viz, regulation, accreditation, and setting of professional standards. Notably, funding will not fall under its purview and will remain with the administrative ministry, ensuring a separation of powers that aligns with the NEP’s guiding principles. This distinction is crucial to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that policy oversight remains independent of financial control. However, medical and law colleges will remain outside its ambit, continuing to be regulated by their respective professional councils. While this exclusion might be seen as a limitation, it reflects the government’s cautious approach in reforming sectors that have distinct regulatory traditions and sensitivities.
The National Education Policy 2020 had envisioned exactly such a transformation. It emphasized that “the regulatory system is in need of a complete overhaul in order to re-energize the higher education sector and enable it to thrive.” The NEP proposed separating the four major functions: regulation, accreditation, funding, and academic standard setting. The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhikshan represents the first major step in realizing that vision.
Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s ministry has been instrumental in reviving the HECI proposal with a broader scope, a clearer structure, and a national development-oriented outlook.
While the idea of a single regulator sounds promising, its success will depend on careful execution. Integrating three large regulatory bodies into one unified structure will require institutional coordination, clarity of roles, and a transition plan that minimizes disruption. Moreover, questions remain about how the Commission will handle accreditation and how it will interact with private institutions which itself is a rapidly expanding segment of India’s higher education landscape. The decision to keep funding outside the regulator’s domain is also a double-edged sword. While it prevents concentration of power, it could lead to bureaucratic bottlenecks if the administrative ministry does not adopt a responsive, institution-friendly approach.
Comments