A new legislative proposal introduced in the Lok Sabha has ignited a fierce debate over the future of India's higher education system. The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, aims to dismantle the existing regulatory framework and replace it with a singular, centralized authority. Tabled amid vocal resistance from opposition parties, the bill seeks to repeal three cornerstone acts: the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act of 1956, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Act of 1987, and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act of 1993.
A New Regulatory Architecture: Centralized Command
The bill's core is the creation of an umbrella regulator called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan. This apex body is tasked with providing direction for the holistic growth of higher education. It will oversee three subordinate councils: a regulatory council, an accreditation council, and a standards council. On paper, this streamlined structure addresses long-standing complaints about overlapping mandates, duplicative inspections, and bureaucratic delays. The government's stated goal is efficiency, coherence, and alignment with the transformative vision of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
However, the proposed design raises profound questions about power concentration. Every key position within this new architecture—the chairperson of the apex body, its 12 members, and the heads of all three councils—will be appointed by the President of India based on recommendations from search committees led by the Union government. This process, while constitutional, effectively places the entire regulatory ecosystem under the direct influence of the central government, with no institutionalized role for state governments in appointments.
Powers of the Centre: Override and Supersede
The centralization of authority is further cemented by specific clauses in the bill. Clauses 45 and 47 grant the Union government overriding policy authority. Any dispute over whether a matter constitutes "policy" will be resolved unilaterally by the Centre, with its decision being final. Furthermore, the government can direct the regulatory bodies to perform "such other functions as it deems fit," an open-ended provision that critics argue leaves little room for independent regulatory judgment.
Perhaps the most contentious provision is the government's power to supersede the commission or any of the councils. If the Centre believes a body has defaulted on its functions or failed to follow its directions, it can dissolve that body, remove its members, and assume direct control until it is reconstituted. This power transforms regulatory independence into a conditional privilege, subject to executive discretion.
Federalism and Autonomy at Stake
Opposition parties and education experts have framed their objections around the erosion of federal principles and institutional autonomy. Education is a subject on the Concurrent List, requiring cooperation between the Centre and states. The bill's design, with its centralized appointments and funding, is seen as marginalizing state governments. The proposed Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Fund will be financed primarily through Union government grants, deepening fiscal dependence and potentially stifling decentralized decision-making.
Critics argue that India's higher education landscape is marked by immense linguistic, social, and economic diversity, particularly in state universities. A one-size-fits-all regulatory model imposed from New Delhi risks flattening this essential pluralism. Even the bill's Hindi nomenclature has sparked debate, feeding into broader anxieties about whose vision of a "Viksit Bharat" is being institutionalized.
The government defends the bill as fulfilling the NEP's promise of a "light but tight" regulatory framework, promising minimal interference with strict accountability. Yet, the expansive discretionary powers vested in the Union government contradict the notion of light-touch regulation, creating a system of conditional autonomy.
The bill has now been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for scrutiny, a move that acknowledges the profound constitutional and structural implications of the legislation. The committee's deliberations will be crucial in determining whether this reform strengthens India's higher education system or fundamentally alters the federal compact that supports it. The ultimate question is not whether reform is needed—it widely is—but whether it must come at the cost of federalism, pluralism, and genuine institutional autonomy.
