The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) Bill, 2025, which subsumes the UGC, AICTE, and NCTE, is being touted as a reform that would ensure quality, accountability and global competitiveness. However, a thorough analysis of the Bill indicates that it is an intensely centralising framework which is going to be not just a threat to federalism, institutional autonomy, and academic freedom but also to the interests of students.
Education in India is on the concurrent list. Therefore, any reform in this sector warrants the meaningful participation of both the Union and the States. While the new Bill claims to ensure coordination and standards, it practically centralises authority in the Union Government.
The VBSA and its three councils—the Standards Council, Accreditation Council, and Regulatory Council—are exclusively Union Government-constituted entities. Further, appointments are also completely controlled by the Union Executive. State representation is minimal and is based on a rotational, short-term basis, limiting continuity and influence. This new structure risks not just diminishing cooperative federalism but also reducing states that fund large universities to passive stakeholders.
Additionally, the Bill empowers the Central Government to issue binding policy directions, to resolve disputes over whether an issue is “policy” unilaterally, and even to supersede the Commission and Councils. These are sweeping powers that could disproportionately empower the Union Government, eroding the federal character of higher education governance.
The Bill ostensibly advocates “autonomy,” but the framework it establishes practically enslaves the institutions to the Union Government’s ubiquitous supervision.
Sample this. The most important academic and administrative decisions, such as the founding of branches, constituent colleges, or off-campus units, require the prior permission of the Regulatory Council, which the Union Government strictly controls. The autonomy granted by the new structure is not a right but a conditional concession that can be revoked through regulatory or financial penalties.
The Council for Standards is allowed to determine the expected learning outcomes, academic standards, and even faculty qualification standards. Although the setting of standards is essential, the enormity of these powers carries the danger of making a vast, multilingual and multicultural country like India adopt a uniform, straightjacketed curriculum and pedagogy.
Furthermore, the Commission’s decision to introduce “Bharatiya knowledge” without any precise requirements for pluralism may lead to the dilution of academic rigour through the imposition of certain ideologies. Academic freedom depends on institutional independence and disciplinary autonomy. It is curtailed when curricula and outcomes result from centralised policy directives rather than from scholarly consensus.
Unfortunately, the bill has a chilling effect, as it establishes a wide-ranging penalty regime with heavy financial penalties, the withdrawal of autonomy, suspension of degree-granting powers, and even the closure of institutions. The central regulator can exercise such punitive measures and may end up encouraging a culture that prioritises compliance over academic excellence.
Moreover, faculty and administrators would conceivably steer clear of any innovative, interdisciplinary, or critical endeavours out of fear of the regulator’s scrutiny or the consequences of their actions. Eventually, this might suppress excellence and global competitiveness that the Bill touts as its benefits.
The assurance given in Clause 36 of the Bill that penalties should not affect students’ interests is still mainly in words. The withdrawal of affiliation, suspension of degree-granting powers, or closure of an institution would disrupt students’ academic careers.
Additionally, the centralised grievance redressal system keeps students away from local authorities responsible for them and from those who can respond quickly to regional issues, such as language, access, affordability, and social inclusion, which are the most common.
Notably, appeals against the decisions of both the Commission and the Councils are made not to an independent body such as a tribunal, but only to the Union Government, making it the regulator, supervisor, and final arbiter, thereby eroding checks and balances. Besides, the Act makes it clear that its provisions will prevail over existing laws, thus further marginalising existing state legislation and institutional statutes.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, signifies a major shift in the direction of governing higher education through centralised means, raising serious concerns about federalism, institutional autonomy, and academic freedom. Although the goals of uniform standards and transparency are quite legitimate, it is still impossible to attain them by surrendering States, universities, and academic communities to a tyrannical central regulator.
With the Bill in its current form, universities will become administrative wings of the Union Executive, resulting in loss of diversity, innovation, and freedom for students and faculty.
-30-
Copyright©Madras Courier, All Rights Reserved. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from madrascourier.com and redistribute by email, post to the web, mobile phone or social media.Please send in your feed back and comments to [email protected]
