As the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhikshan Bill, 2025, moves JPC for further scrutiny, universities support regulatory consolidation but warn against excessive centralisation, compliance overload and disruption to academic planning
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhikshan Bill (VBSA) 2025, previously known as the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) Bill, was introduced in the Lok Sabha by Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan on 15 December 2025, a few days after the Union Cabinet approved it. The bill proposes subsuming the University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) into a single apex body.
The Bill provides for the establishment of the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhikshan as an apex body, supported by three independent councils: a Standards Council, a Regulatory Council and an Accreditation Council. The government has positioned this structure as a way to eliminate duplication of control, ensure transparency through public disclosure, and shift regulatory focus towards outcomes rather than approvals.
Aligned with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the Bill also proposes a technology-driven, faceless single-window system, relying on public disclosure of governance, financial, academic and institutional performance data. This data will form the basis of regulation and accreditation, replacing multiple inspections and approvals.
While institutions broadly support regulatory simplification, educators caution that excessive academic and administrative centralisation could undermine the very autonomy the Bill seeks to promote. Daviender Narang, Director, Jaipuria Institute of Management, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, said institutions are carefully evaluating its implications. “The primary concern is that excessive centralisation could replace contextual academic judgement with uniform policy prescriptions. Curriculum autonomy, in particular, thrives on flexibility, allowing institutions to revise content quickly in response to technological change, global practices, and local economic priorities,” said Narang.
“Similarly, faculty recruitment decisions often require domain-specific discretion that may not align neatly with standardised eligibility frameworks. If the new framework enables trust-based governance rather than rule-based supervision, institutions believe centralisation risks can be effectively mitigated,” he added.
Transition Challenges For Legacy Programmes
Beyond autonomy, educators also point to immediate operational challenges as institutions transition from multiple legacy regulators to a single authority. Narang highlighted regulatory uncertainty as a key concern. “The foremost concern is regulatory uncertainty during the transition period—particularly regarding the continuity of programme approvals, accreditation status, and compliance obligations.” He added that institutions are seeking concrete safeguards during the reform phase.
Kirti Avishek, Associate Dean (Infrastructure and Planning), BIT Mesra, echoed concerns around operational disruption during the transition period. “With one central regulator in place, many institutions might have the opinion that their freedom in academics and administration may be impacted. Previously, universities could negotiate some flexibility within UGC rules, especially for designing new courses, recruiting faculty, or developing interdisciplinary programmes. With a single authority now, the decisions may become more top-down, leaving less room for innovation.”
On transition challenges, he added: “Universities running programmes approved by UGC, AICTE, or NCTE may expect confusion during the transition to a new framework. They may need to revise course structures, paperwork, and approval documents swiftly, even during the period of admissions and classes. This can lead to extra work and uncertainty.” He stressed the need for clarity and communication.
At the same time, some educators see clear advantages in having a unified regulator, particularly in reducing policy fragmentation across regions. “Getting one centralised body for higher education would solve many difficulties that arise due to different regulators and different policies. The institutions will have one set of document framework to look up to, when it comes to academic pathways such as curriculum framing, interdisciplinary courses and in governance and administration areas such as faculty recruitments and other regulations,” said Pooja Ramchandani, Principal of H.R. College of Commerce and Economics.
“What will be the best part is that the entire nation will be following similar administrative and academic policies and will not be different for different regions and States,” she added. Her view aligns with the Bill’s stated objective of replacing overlapping oversight with a harmonised regulatory architecture, even as institutions stress that uniformity must not dilute academic flexibility.
Autonomy Versus Uniformity
According to the Ministry of Education, the unified framework is intended to reduce duplication of control, improve transparency and enable trust-based regulation. High-performing institutions are expected to receive enhanced autonomy, while regulation will shift towards outcomes such as learning effectiveness, research impact and employability.
Anubha Singh, Deputy Vice Chancellor, Sai University, described the Bill as a major governance shift but underscored that its success depends on execution. “Universities expect clearer autonomy in curriculum design, faculty appointments, and interdisciplinary initiatives as overlapping controls recede. Accountability should rest on measurable learning outcomes, research impact, graduate trajectories, and societal impact, not prescriptive oversight,” she said.
On implementation, she said: “Aligning academic approvals, accreditation, and compliance under one regulator demands phased implementation and transparent guidelines. Institutions seek assurance that academic workflows, student intake cycles, and institutional credibility remain uninterrupted through clear transitional measures.”
Educators note that many of their concerns mirror the Bill’s stated objectives, reduced over-regulation, enhanced autonomy and outcome-based oversight, but stress that real impact will depend on how these principles are implemented on the ground.
The VBSA Bill, 2025, which also emphasises student-centric reforms, interdisciplinary education, robust grievance redressal mechanisms and alignment with global best practices to position India as a knowledge hub, was referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for further scrutiny as several MPs emphasised wider consultations on the bill after it was introduced in the Lok Sabha.
Published in
