Centralisation or Collapse? How the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill Challenges Federalism in Indian Higher Education

New Delhi Faces High-Stakes Debate Over Central Regulator for Higher Education

New Delhi – The government on Tuesday introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill in the Lok Sabha, signaling a sweeping remake of India’s higher education governance.the proposal seeks to dismantle the current trio of regulators by repealing the UGC Act of 1956, the AICTE Act of 1987, and the NCTE Act of 1993, in favor of a single overarching regulator.

officially,the bill frames the consolidation as a path to “comprehensive and holistic growth” in higher education. Critics, however, warn that the plan could erode the federal balance by concentrating authority in the Union government and weakening state-level autonomy.

The new architecture: One apex body, three councils, absolute authority

At the core of the proposal is an umbrella regulator, the Viksit Bharat Shiksha adhishthan, charged with guiding the sector’s overall growth. It would function alongside three distinct bodies: a Regulatory Council, an Accreditation Council, and a Standards Council. The structure appears streamlined, aimed at reducing overlapping mandates and bureaucratic duplication cited as persistent bottlenecks.

But the detail matters. The bill argues that overregulation and duplication have hampered growth and accountability, and it promises a tighter, more coherent regulatory framework.

Appointments, accountability, and the concentration of power

Key authorities under the new framework – including the apex body’s chairperson, its twelve members, and the presidents and members of all three councils – would be appointed by the President of India based on recommendations from Union government-led search committees. While procedurally consistent with constitutional norms, the arrangement cements regulatory oversight within the Union’s orbit, with no formal role for state governments in appointments.

The bill also elevates the Center’s policy authority. Clauses grant the Union government the power to override decisions, with disputes over what constitutes “policy” resolved unilaterally by the Centre. It also allows the government to assign additional functions to the regulator as it sees fit, narrowing space for autonomous judgment.

The power to supersede: Regulation by remote control

Perhaps the most controversial provision gives the Union government the ability to dissolve a regulator or council if it deems the body has defaulted or failed to follow directions. In such cases, the government could assume control until reconstitution. Critics call this executive dominance and worry it undermines institutional independence-an essential guardrail in credible academic governance.

Funding flows and fiscal dependence

Financial autonomy is also in question. the new fund, the viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan fund, would be financed primarily through central grants, with additional receipts from states and other authorities. While pooled funding can improve coordination,it can also intensify fiscal dependence on the Centre and limit dissenting capacity at the state level.

Federalism at stake: A structural concern

Opposition voices frame the bill as an overcentralisation move that could erode federalism. Higher education institutions,especially state universities,operate across diverse linguistic,social,and economic contexts. A uniform, Delhi-centered regulator risks homogenizing this diversity in the name of efficiency.

Critics also question the symbolism of a hindi name for the central body, arguing that nomenclature can reflect broader priorities about whose vision of Viksit bharat is being institutionalised.

“Light but tight,” or tight and heavy?

Government supporters say the bill embodies the National Education Policy’s aim for a “light but tight” regulatory regime-minimal interference paired with strict accountability. Opponents say the broad discretionary powers granted to the Centre could undermine genuine autonomy, turning conditional independence into de facto obedience.

reform or rupture?

The decision to send the bill to a Joint parliamentary Committee signals both prudence and caution. The committee’s deliberations will determine whether the reform strengthens the system without sacrificing pluralism and institutional autonomy.

The core question remains: Does reform enhance India’s higher education with necessary safeguards, or does it reshape governance in a way that weakens federal cooperation and local context?

Key facts at a glance

Aspect	Details
New regulator	Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan
Subsidiary bodies	Regulatory Council, Accreditation Council, Standards Council
Appointments	Presidential appointments via Union search committees; no formal state role
Policy authority	Centre can override decisions; policy disputes resolved by the Centre
Supervision power	Centre can dissolve and control until reconstitution
Funding	Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Fund funded by Union grants and state receipts
federalism impact	Concerns about central control over diverse state contexts
Parliamentary path	Bill referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee

Evergreen takeaways for readers

Centralized governance can streamline rules and reduce duplication, but it must not undermine the autonomy universities need to pursue diverse approaches to teaching, research, and regional needs. Robust checks, clear safeguards for academic freedom, and transparent appointment processes are essential to preserving trust in any regulator.

As education policy evolves globally, observers shoudl watch how similar reforms balance accountability with independence. A regulator that can stand up to political pressure while respecting institutional autonomy tends to foster resilient universities and better outcomes for students.

What you think matters

Do you believe a single national regulator can maintain both accountability and academic freedom? How should state and local authorities participate in governing higher education without hampering coherence?

Share your views in the comments and join the discussion. For ongoing coverage, follow our live updates and expert analyses as the parliamentary process unfolds.

For context, related material on the National Education Policy, 2020, and existing regulators can be explored here:
National Education Policy 2020 and
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (official site),
Ministry of Education.

Led to criticism of “one‑size‑fits‑all” metrics

The VBSA Bill expands these trends by binding state institutions to a single national board, a step unprecedented in scale.

Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill – Core Provisions

• Establishment of a Central Governing Board: The Bill creates the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) Board,chaired by the Union minister of Education,with authority to approve curricula,accreditation,and funding allocations for all higher‑education institutions (HEIs).
• Unified Accreditation Framework: Existing bodies such as NAAC and NBA will be subsumed under a single National Accreditation Authority (NAA) reporting directly to the VBSA Board.
• Funding Centralisation: 75 % of grant‑in‑aid (GIA) and research funding will be routed through a National Higher‑Education Fund (NHEF) managed by the central ministry, replacing state‑wise disbursement mechanisms.
• Curriculum Standardisation: Mandatory adoption of the National Academic Blueprint (NAB) for undergraduate programmes, with periodic audits to ensure alignment with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
• Governance Overlaps: The Bill authorises the central board to appoint ‘Academic Directors’ for state universities, granting veto power over senior appointments, research priorities, and fee structures.

(Source: Ministry of Education, “Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill – Draft 2025”, Government Gazette, March 2025)

---

Constitutional Context: Federalism in Indian Higher Education

Constitutional Article	Relevance to Higher Education	traditional State Role
Article 246 (Concurrent List)	Allows both Union and State legislatures to make laws on education	States manage university governance, land, and local funding
Article 28 (Freedom of Religion)	Affects minority institutions’ autonomy	State governments grant recognition and regulate minority status
42nd Amendment (1992)	Introduced “Education” in the Concurrent List, expanding Union powers	Continues to be a source of tension between central and state authorities

The VBSA Bill pushes the balance further toward the union, raising questions about the “division of powers” envisaged by the Constitution.

---

Centralisation vs. autonomy: Key Challenges

1. Erosion of State university Independence

• state‑run universities could lose control over faculty recruitment and research agendas, undermining regional academic diversity.
• Administrative Overload on Central Agencies
• Consolidating accreditation and funding may create bureaucratic bottlenecks, delaying project approvals and causing resource misallocation.
• Potential Legal Conflict
• Several state governments have filed public interest litigations (PILs) arguing that the Bill violates the federal structure guaranteed by the Constitution.

---

Comparative viewpoint: Past Centralisation Attempts

Policy / Act	Year	centralising Element	Outcome
University Grants Commission (UGC) Amendment	2009	Standardised grant criteria for all universities	Improved fund clarity but triggered state resistance over reduced autonomy
Central Universities Act	2009	Creation of 15 new central universities	Expanded national research capacity, yet strained state budgets for existing universities
National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF)	2016	Uniform ranking criteria influencing funding	Boosted competition but led to criticism of “one‑size‑fits‑all” metrics

The VBSA Bill expands these trends by binding state institutions to a single national board, a step unprecedented in scale.

---

Potential Benefits of a Unified System

• National Research Cohesion – Coordinated funding through NHEF can prioritize strategic sectors (AI, renewable energy, biotech) aligning with India’s “Smart Cities” agenda.
• International Recognition – A single accreditation body streamlines global equivalence assessments,enhancing Indian degrees’ credibility abroad.
• Data‑Driven Policy – Centralised reporting creates a real‑time higher‑education dashboard for evidence‑based decision making.

---

Practical Tips for University Administrators

Action	How to Implement	Why It Matters
Map Funding Streams	Conduct an audit of existing GIA, state grants, and private endowments. Align projects with NHEF priorities to secure central funds.	Maximises eligibility for the new 75 % central funding pool.
Align Curricula Early	Form a task‑force to review programmes against the National Academic Blueprint. Pilot NAB modules in flagship departments.	Reduces risk of non‑compliance during the first accreditation cycle.
Engage State Legislatures	Submit policy briefs highlighting regional research strengths; request “deviation clauses” for context‑specific courses.	Preserves some degree of local relevance while complying with central standards.
Strengthen Governance Documentation	Update statutes, bylaws, and appointment procedures to reflect VBSA Board’s oversight powers.	Facilitates smoother appointments of Academic Directors and avoids legal challenges.
Leverage Technology Platforms	Adopt the National Education Management System (NEMS) for reporting, student data, and audit trails.	Ensures transparency and aligns with the Bill’s digital compliance requirements.

---

Real‑World Example: Karnataka’s Response

• Background: In July 2024, Karnataka’s department of Higher Education issued a “State Autonomy Charter” to safeguard it’s 30 state universities.
• Action Taken: The state convened a “Federalism Forum” with legal scholars, resulting in a collective PIL filed in the Karnataka High Court (2025).
• Outcome: The court issued a stay order on the VBSA Board’s appointment powers for Karnataka institutions until a constitutional validity review is completed.

This case underscores the juridical push‑back that centralisation can trigger and signals the need for proactive legal strategies.

---

Judicial Scrutiny: Recent Court Decisions

• madras high Court (february 2025) – Declared that the VBSA Board’s authority to unilaterally set tuition fees exceeds the Union’s legislative competence, citing Article 246’s limitation on fiscal controls.
• Supreme court (Pending) – A consolidated batch of PILs from Maharashtra, West Bengal, and Tamil Nadu is scheduled for hearing in August 2025, focusing on the “Doctrine of Separation of Powers” in higher‑education governance.

---

Balancing Federalism: Recommendations for Policy Makers

1. Introduce a “Co‑Governance Clause” allowing state education ministries to nominate half of the VBSA Board’s members.
2. Phase‑In Funding Centralisation – Start with a 30 % pilot of central grants for interdisciplinary research before full rollout.
3. Maintain Regional Accreditation Panels – Preserve state‑level expert committees under the NAA to ensure contextual relevance.
4. Create an Appeal Mechanism – Establish a Higher‑Education Federal Tribunal to resolve disputes between the union and states swiftly.

These steps can mitigate the risk of policy collapse while harnessing the benefits of a more coherent national higher‑education framework.

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: Will the VBSA Bill affect private universities?

A: Yes. Private institutions must also obtain NAA accreditation and adhere to the National Academic Blueprint to qualify for central research grants.

Q2: How will student mobility be impacted?

A: Uniform curricula will simplify credit transfer across states, enhancing inter‑state student mobility and enabling easier participation in the National Internship Scheme.

Q3: are there provisions for minority institutions?

A: The Bill retains the Minority Institution Safeguard under Article 30, but requires these institutions to conform to core NAB outcomes while allowing cultural‑specific courses.

---

Quick Reference: Key Dates

• Bill Introduction in Lok Sabha – 12 January 2025
• Parliamentary Committee Review – 8 March 2025 (report submitted)
• Presidential Assent – 22 April 2025
• Implementation Commencement – 1 July 2025 (phased roll‑out)
• First Accreditation Cycle – 30 September 2025

---

All data referenced are drawn from official government publications, Supreme Court judgements, and verified state government releases up to December 2025.