A representative image
The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) Bill, 2025, is set to support the Centre’s proposal to overhaul higher education regulation in India, while recommending a series of safeguards aimed at protecting institutional autonomy, ensuring stakeholder consultation and increasing state participation in the new regulatory structure.
The draft report of the committee is expected to be adopted on July 20, the first day of the Monsoon Session of Parliament.
Introduced in the Lok Sabha by Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan on December 15, 2025, the Bill seeks to replace the University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) with a single umbrella regulator called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
The proposed legislation is a key part of implementing the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and aims to streamline higher education governance by creating separate councils for regulation, accreditation and academic standard-setting under a unified framework.
JPC Examined Stakeholder Concerns
The 31-member committee, chaired by BJP MP Dr D Purandeswari, was constituted on February 10, 2026. It comprises 21 members from the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha.
The committee was initially expected to submit its report during the Budget Session but was granted an extension after seeking more time to consult universities, academicians, industry bodies, state governments and other stakeholders.
During its review, the panel interacted with 114 stakeholders. While many supported the objective of reducing regulatory overlap and improving efficiency, several concerns were raised regarding the proposed structure.
One of the key objections was the proposal to abolish the UGC, AICTE and NCTE and replace them with a single regulator.
Stakeholders argued that concentrating regulatory, appointment and oversight powers within a single body could lead to excessive centralisation and potentially affect academic freedom as well as the federal balance between the Centre and states.
Several state governments also expressed concerns that the Bill does not adequately reflect the principle of cooperative federalism, despite state universities accounting for a majority of higher education institutions across the country.
Questions were also raised about the absence of mandatory consultation with universities before framing regulations and conducting inspections under the new framework.
Concerns over autonomy of premier institutions
Institutions and education experts additionally voiced apprehensions over bringing Institutions of National Importance, including IITs, IIMs, NITs and IISERs, within the ambit of the new law.
They argued that any regulatory framework affecting such institutions should explicitly protect their statutory autonomy.
Stakeholders also pointed to the absence of a separate Higher Education Grants Council (HEGC), one of the four verticals envisioned under the NEP 2020. Some also objected to the exclusive use of Hindi nomenclature for the proposed commission and councils.
After reviewing the concerns, the committee broadly endorsed the government’s proposal for a unified regulator.
The panel observed that higher education institutions currently have to comply with 54 separate regulations under multiple regulators. It noted that these could be consolidated into around 12 unified regulations, reducing duplication and easing compliance burdens.
At the same time, the committee recommended several safeguards to strengthen the proposed framework.
It suggested structured representation for states and Union Territories in the commission and its councils while clarifying that state universities would continue to operate under their respective state laws.
The panel also recommended making stakeholder consultation a statutory requirement before framing regulations, standards and inspection mechanisms.
To address concerns regarding premier institutions, it proposed retaining explicit provisions safeguarding the autonomy of Institutions of National Importance and making consultations with them mandatory before introducing regulations that affect their functioning.
Dual-language nomenclature suggested
The committee further recommended that the proposed commission and councils adopt dual Hindi-English nomenclature in official communications to improve accessibility and ensure greater international recognition.
According to the draft report, the committee concluded that the proposed legislation does not weaken academic autonomy or cooperative federalism. Instead, it found that a unified regulatory model could simplify governance and improve the quality and competitiveness of India’s higher education system.
