Regulating higher education: Focus should be on improving outcomes

The Union government this week introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, in Parliament. The Bill envisages replacing the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) with a single apex institution called the “Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan”. The new body will function through three distinct but interlinked verticals: A regulatory council, an accreditation council, and a standards council. Significantly, it brings institutions of national importance such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), National Institutes of Technology (NITs), and Indian Institute of Science (IISc), which have functioned under separate parliamentary statutes, within a routine regulatory frame of oversight. However, it does not cover institutions under the Pharmacy Council of India, Bar Council of India, Veterinary Council of India, and National Medical Commission. 

At present, the regulation of higher education in India is spread across multiple agencies with overlapping mandates. The UGC oversees non-technical universities, the AICTE is concerned with technical education, while the NCTE is the regulatory body for teachers’ education. This multiplicity has often resulted in slow approvals, inconsistent norms, and excessive compliance requirements. In terms of performance, despite hosting over 1,300 universities and nearly 52,000 colleges, India’s gross enrolment ratio remains around 28 per cent and scale has not translated into commensurate quality or global academic standing. India’s higher education system continues to struggle with faculty shortages, uneven funding, and limited research capacity. According to a recent parliamentary panel report, as of January 2025 more than half the professor positions, which are the most senior academic roles, are vacant across India’s higher education system, including at premier institutions like the IITs and central universities. Such gaps undermine academic leadership, mentoring, and research output. 

The proposed law’s attempt to merge multiple regulatory functions into one framework needs detailed rules, a clear division of roles, and close coordination among the Centre, states, and institutions to avoid confusion. On funding, the current system sees the Centre disburse grants to central universities through the UGC, while institutions such as the IITs and IIMs receive funds directly from the Centre. The Bill proposes that grant disbursement be done directly by the Ministry of Education, effectively removing the grant-making role from the proposed regulator. While this may simplify administrative processes, it also raises concerns about greater centralisation of financial control. The Bill is also silent on fee regulation. It does not empower the regulatory council to fix or cap fees, raising fears that greater reliance on institutional self-financing could push up costs for students. At the same time, the proposed commission is given wide enforcement powers, including the authority to impose penalties for violations of the Act, with highest fines reserved for institutions operating without approval from the Centre or the state concerned. For the reform to deliver results, industry link and skill-focused education must be central. As the Bill goes to a joint parliamentary committee, these operational issues must be carefully scrutinised.