[Answered] Examine the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, in light of the proposed transition to a single regulatory body for higher education. Critically analyze whether this reform promotes administrative efficiency or leads to excessive centralization, undermining federal diversity and institutional autonomy.

Introduction

India’s higher education system, comprising over 1,160 universities, faces regulatory fragmentation; the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025 seeks structural overhaul amid debates on efficiency, autonomy, and federal balance.

Context: Fragmented Higher Education Governance

1. Multiplicity of Regulators: Overlapping mandates of University Grants Commission, All India Council for Technical Education and National Council for Teacher Education caused compliance burden.
2. Scale Challenge: India hosts 1,168 universities and 45,000+ colleges (AISHE 2021–22).
3. Global Benchmark Gap: QS rankings highlight governance inefficiencies affecting global competitiveness.

Core Proposal of the Bill

1. Single Umbrella Body: Creation of Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan with three councils: Regulation, Standards, Accreditation.
2. Functional Separation: Distinct roles for authorisation, learning outcomes, and quality assurance.
3. Expanded Jurisdiction: Coverage extends to Central, State, private universities and INIs (excluding medical, legal fields).
4. Enforcement Powers: Penalties up to ₹2 crore for non-compliance—significant deterrence upgrade.

Arguments Supporting Administrative Efficiency

1. Regulatory Rationalisation: Eliminates duplication, contradictory norms, and forum-shopping by institutions.
2. Ease of Doing Academia: Single-window approvals align with NEP’s “light but tight” regulation principle.
3. Conflict of Interest Reduction: De-linking rule-making from grant-giving removes regulatory capture risks.
4. Global Practice Alignment: UK’s Office for Students model shows benefits of unified oversight.
5. Quality Assurance Push: Uniform accreditation framework may bring elite institutions into accountability net.

Concerns of Excessive Centralisation

1. Federal Marginalisation: States have minimal representation; education is a Concurrent List subject.
2. Funding Central Control: Direct grant disbursal by Ministry raises concerns of political leverage.
3. Institutional Autonomy Risks: INIs historically enjoyed freedom under Parliamentary Acts; regulatory oversight may dilute autonomy.
4. Precedent of Failure: Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011 withdrawn due to centralisation concerns flagged by Standing Committee.
5. Academic Freedom Debate: FEDCUTA warns of executive dominance over academic decision-making.

Comparative & Policy Perspective

1. NEP 2020 Vision: Recommended Higher Education Commission with independent funding council—missing in current Bill.
2. CAG (2012) Lessons: Over-centralised regulators risk inefficiency and accountability deficits.
3. International Experience: US decentralised accreditation preserves diversity while ensuring quality.

Way Forward: Balancing Efficiency with Diversity

1. Strengthen Cooperative Federalism: Mandatory state representation in all councils.
2. Independent Funding Mechanism: Arm’s-length grants commission as per NEP spirit.
3. Differentiated Regulation: Vertical-specific norms for technical, teacher, and research institutions.
4. Phased Integration: Gradual absorption of AICTE/NCTE expertise to avoid regulatory shock.
5. Parliamentary Oversight: Annual reporting to ensure transparency and accountability.

Conclusion

As cautioned by Amartya Sen in The Idea of Justice, institutional reform must preserve pluralism. The Bill’s success hinges on balancing regulatory efficiency with autonomy, federal trust, and academic freedom.