VB-SA Bill 2025: Restructuring Higher Education in the Name of ‘Viksit Bharat’ – From Autonomy to Control
Vikram Singh
The final month of 2025 arrived in the nation’s capital with biting cold and suffocating pollution. Delhi felt confused, so much seemed to be happening, yet very little was clearly understood. A similar atmosphere surrounded Parliament’s winter session. Many developments took place, but ordinary people struggled to grasp how these decisions would affect their daily lives.
The ruling establishment, however, moved forward with clarity and aggression. It appeared determined to implement key parts of its class-driven agenda before the year ended. Even before the session began, the government enforced the Labour Codes, despite widespread resistance from workers across the country. This was a clear signal of what the parliamentary session would look like.
While people hoped Parliament would seriously debate issues such as pollution or SIR, public concerns have rarely been a priority for the BJP. Instead, discussions were steered toward the National Song with a specific political purpose. It is worth noting that although this session was very short, several crucial bills were passed with little or no discussion. Among them was the Viksit Bharat–Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, 2025 (VB-GRAMG), which effectively weakens the right to work for rural working people.
A Direct Attack on Higher Education: Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025
Along with workers, students across the country faced a major blow. On 15 December, the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025 was introduced in the Lok Sabha, aiming to completely restructure the regulatory framework of higher education in India. Growing resistance both inside and outside Parliament forced the government to send the bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee on the same day.
Through this bill, the government seeks not only to further commercialise higher education but also to centralise unprecedented power in the hands of the Union government. In reality, there is nothing entirely new here. The bill is a continuation of the agenda laid out in the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 introduced by the BJP-led government.
Through this bill, the government seeks not only to further commercialise higher education but also to centralise unprecedented power in the hands of the Union government. In reality, there is nothing entirely new here. The bill is a continuation of the agenda being forced by the BJP-led government laid out in the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. Under the NEP 2020, concerns were raised about the higher education regulatory system being “overly rigid and ineffective,” with excessive concentration of power in certain bodies and serious lack of accountability due to conflicts of interest.
As a solution, Section 18.2 of the policy proposes a major restructuring. It states, “To address the above-mentioned issues, the regulatory system of higher education will ensure that the distinct functions of regulation, accreditation, funding, and academic standard setting will be performed by distinct, independent, and empowered bodies. This is considered essential to create checks-and-balances in the system, minimize conflicts of interest, and eliminate concentrations of power. To ensure that the four institutional structures carrying out these four essential functions work independently yet at the same time and work in synergy towards common goals. These four structures will be set up as four independent verticals within one umbrella institution, the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI).” Seen in this light, the bill is not an isolated reform. It is part of a broader campaign by the BJP government to bring the entire education system under central control, while pushing it further toward commercialisation and communalisation. This article attempts to examine the key provisions of the bill and understand their likely impact on higher education in India.
What Does This Bill Propose?
Through this bill, the government aims to create an entirely new system for regulating higher education. The bill provides for the establishment of a commission called the “Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.” According to the objectives stated in Section 4, the purpose of the bill is to set up a single, supreme umbrella body named Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan. This body, along with three councils, will be responsible for regulation, accreditation, and maintaining academic standards for universities and higher education institutions (HEIs) across India. It will also issue guidelines for the overall and integrated development of higher education.
What Does This Really Mean?
At present, higher education in India is regulated by multiple separate bodies, each responsible for a specific sector. These include the University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), National Medical Commission (NMC) (earlier known as the Medical Council of India), the Bar Council of India, and others.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan will replace the UGC, AICTE, and NCTE, and the bill repeals the three laws under which these bodies were originally established. In other words, regulatory authority that was earlier spread across different institutions will now be concentrated under a single central structure.
Scope of the Bill: Which Institutions Will It Apply To?
A closer reading of Section 2 of the bill shows that its scope is extremely wide and far-reaching. The Act will apply to all Institutions of National Importance that have been established through Acts of Parliament and that fall under the administrative control of the Ministry of Education, Government of India. In addition to these, the bill also covers other Institutions of National Importance created by Parliament that the Central Government may specify from time to time through notifications published in the Official Gazette.
The bill further includes all universities in India that have been established or incorporated under either a Central Act or a State Act. It also brings within its ambit institutions that were declared “deemed to be universities” under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, through notifications issued by the Department of Higher Education in the Ministry of Education before this new Act comes into force. Along with universities, all colleges and other higher education institutions that are affiliated with or linked to these universities will also be governed by the provisions of this Act.
Beyond universities and colleges, the bill applies to institutions regulated under several existing professional laws. These include institutions governed by the Architects Act, 1972; those regulated under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987; and institutions under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. It also covers institutions offering open and distance learning, online education, and digital education that are recognised by the University Grants Commission. In addition, Institutions of Eminence and institutions regulated by other professional councils notified by the Central Government are included, as well as any other programmes or institutions that the government may choose to notify in the future.
In simple terms, this means that almost the entire higher education ecosystem in India will come under a single central regulatory framework. All central universities and colleges, along with Institutions of National Importance operating under the Ministry of Education, will be covered. This includes elite institutions such as the IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs. It is significant to note that until now, institutions like the IITs and IIMs were not regulated by the University Grants Commission. Bringing them under this new framework marks a major shift in higher education governance and raises important questions about institutional autonomy and academic freedom.
Which Institutions Will Not Be Covered by the Bill?
According to the same section of the bill, its provisions will not apply to several key professional and statutory bodies that regulate specific fields of education and practice. These include the Pharmacy Council of India, the Bar Council of India, the Veterinary Council of India, and the Rehabilitation Council of India. The bill also excludes the National Medical Commission, which oversees medical education, as well as the National Commission for Indian Systems of Medicine and the National Commission for Homoeopathy. In addition, institutions and programmes regulated by the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions, the National Nursing and Midwifery Commission, and the National Dental Commission fall outside the scope of this Act. The bill further allows the Central Government to notify any other programmes, institutions, commissions, or councils that may also be exempted from its provisions.
In effect, while the bill brings a vast majority of higher education institutions under a single central regulatory framework, it deliberately keeps several medical, legal, and health-related professional bodies outside its purview. This selective exclusion raises important questions about consistency in regulation and the logic behind centralising control over some areas of higher education while leaving others untouched.
Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan: Structure and Powers
Section 5 of the bill lays down the framework for the establishment of the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan. Under this commission, three councils will function, making it the central authority for higher education regulation in the country. The commission will consist of a Chairperson and twelve members. Its members will include the Chairpersons of the three councils, the Union Government’s Secretary for Higher Education, five eminent experts, and two distinguished academicians from state higher education institutions. The Chairperson of the commission will be a highly reputed individual appointed in an honorary capacity. Both the Chairperson and the members of the commission will be appointed by the President of India, based on recommendations made by the Central Government.
Under the commission, three key councils will be constituted:
- The first is the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Viniyaman Parishad, which will act as a single, central regulatory authority for higher education.
- The second is the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Gunvatta Parishad, which will oversee the entire accreditation system for higher education institutions.
- The third is the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Manak Parishad, which will be responsible for setting academic standards and ensuring that institutions comply with them.
According to the structure outlined in the bill, each council will be headed by a Chairperson and will have up to fourteen members. The Chairpersons of the councils must be distinguished and well-known figures from the fields of higher education or research, with a minimum of ten years’ experience equivalent to that of a professor. The members of the councils will include eminent experts, one member nominated by the Department of Higher Education of the Central Government, and members nominated by the other two councils. In addition, the Regulatory Council and the Standards Council will each include one member nominated by state governments on a rotational basis.
As stated in Section 6 of the bill, the commission’s key functions include providing strategic direction for higher education and research, preparing a clear roadmap for transforming higher education institutions into large, multidisciplinary education and research universities, and suggesting both policy-level and practical measures to improve the quality of education. The commission will also have the authority to issue directions to the councils to ensure effective coordination among them and to provide financial support for their smooth functioning. Taken together, these provisions indicate a powerful central body with wide-ranging influence over the future of higher education, one that will shape not only regulation and standards, but also the long-term vision and structure of universities and research institutions across the country.
Impact of the Bill on the Existing Higher Education System
After India gained independence, there was a broad consensus that higher education is a matter of public interest. It was this understanding that led to the creation of the University Grants Commission (UGC) system. While it is true that the UGC has suffered from bureaucratic complexities and various inefficiencies, it carried a clear statutory responsibility. It was not merely a regulatory body; it also had a mandatory role in funding higher education institutions. Importantly, the UGC functioned within a federal framework, ensuring meaningful participation of state universities, and acted as a protective buffer between universities and direct executive interference. In contrast, the proposed Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) establishes a regulatory state in higher education that lacks meaningful public accountability.
An Attack on the Federal Structure
As discussed earlier, education falls under the Concurrent List of the Constitution. Higher education institutions—especially state universities—operate in diverse linguistic, social, and economic contexts. Over time, higher education in India has evolved through a complex and negotiated relationship between the Centre and the states, shaped by regional histories, linguistic traditions, and socio-economic realities. The regulatory framework proposed in this bill seeks to flatten this diversity into a uniform national template designed in New Delhi. By imposing centralised regulatory uniformity, the bill risks erasing the rich diversity of India’s higher education system in the push toward a one-size-fits-all model.
The bill firmly places the entire higher education regulatory system under the control of the Central Government. State governments are given no institutional role in the appointment of members to the commission or the councils. If we look closely at Sections 45 and 47, the extent of centralisation becomes even more apparent. These provisions grant the Central Government complete authority over policy-making. Section 45(1) of the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill explicitly states that “In the discharge of its functions under this Act, each body constituted or established under this Act, shall be bound by such directions on questions of policy, as the Central Government may give in writing to such body from time to time.”
“Autonomy” as Centralised Remote Control
The bill goes even further in undermining the claim of institutional autonomy. If there is ever a disagreement over whether a particular issue counts as a “policy matter” or not, the Central Government alone will decide, and its decision will be final and binding on the commission and all its councils. Section 45(2) of the bill clearly states that, “In case of a disagreement between the Central Government and any of the bodies constituted or established under this Act as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy, the decision of the Central Government shall be final.” Section 45(3) further empowers the government to direct the commission or the councils to carry out any other functions that it considers appropriate. These provisions make it evident that the government’s claims of autonomy are hollow; in practice, the commission and its councils will be required to implement decisions taken by the Central Government.
This control is not limited to issuing directions. If the Central Government feels that the commission is not functioning according to its “remote control” commands, the bill gives it the power to remove the commission altogether. Under Section 47(1), “If at any time the Central Government is of the opinion that― (a) the Commission or any of the Councils is unable to discharge the functions and duties imposed on it by or under the provisions of this Act; or (b) the Commission or the Councils, as the case may be, established under this Act has persistently made default in complying with any direction given by the Central Government under this Act or in the discharge of the functions and duties imposed on it by or under the provisions of this Act,”
Regulatory independence is a foundational principle of credible academic governance. It is natural for regulatory bodies to sometimes disagree with the government on important issues. Typically, governments offer guidance, while regulatory commissions make recommendations based on academic and institutional realities. However, when all government directions are binding and non-compliance can lead to dismissal, the very purpose of an autonomous regulatory body is compromised. Autonomy cannot exist where disagreement carries the risk of removal.
The Hindutva Agenda in the Name of “Indianisation”
Alongside advancing the agenda of the National Education Policy, the bill repeatedly speaks of promoting Indian knowledge systems, languages, and arts. Section 9, which outlines the functions of the commission, includes sub-clauses (c) to develop a roadmap for promoting India as an education destination that call for preparing a roadmap to integrate and promote Indian knowledge, languages, and arts within a multidisciplinary higher education system, and for “Indianising” education to enrich students’ learning experiences and improve learning outcomes.
There is no doubt that the traditional knowledge systems and languages of any country deserve an important place in its education system. However, under the BJP’s rule, the meaning of “Indian knowledge” has undergone a significant shift. In practice, it has come to mean the imposition of knowledge, languages, and cultural forms associated with one religion and one dominant tradition. A small but telling example of this is the attempt to impose a bill drafted in Hindi terminology on a linguistically diverse and multilingual country. While discussing this issue in Hindi may itself seem ironic, it becomes even more necessary to emphasise that no single language, whether Hindi or any other, should be imposed on everyone.
In reality, this is not merely about Hindi. It is about enforcing the language and culture of the dominant majority under the banner of “Indianisation.” Such an approach threatens India’s plural linguistic and cultural landscape and risks turning education into a tool for ideological conformity rather than critical thinking and inclusive learning.
Graded Autonomy or Another Name for Privatisation?
The bill places strong emphasis on graded autonomy, a concept that has already been widely discussed and criticised during the review of the National Education Policy. The effects of graded autonomy are already visible across the country. In practice, the government’s understanding of “autonomy” does not mean academic or institutional decision-making power. Instead, it is reduced largely to financial autonomy, where institutions are expected to generate their own resources. This directly translates into higher fees and the introduction of self-financed courses, placing an increasing financial burden on students and their families.
True institutional autonomy means the ability of educational institutions to make academic, administrative, and policy decisions through democratic bodies such as syndicates, executive councils, and academic councils, based on their specific geographical, economic, social, and cultural contexts. These decision-making bodies traditionally include elected representatives of students, teachers, and non-teaching staff, ensuring participation and accountability. However, much like the National Education Policy, this bill makes no provision whatsoever for the involvement of students, teachers, or non-teaching staff in policy formulation or decision-making processes. Autonomy, as envisioned in this bill, is therefore stripped of its democratic content.
Free Hand to Private and Foreign Universities
One of the most widely publicised aspects of the bill is its provision for punitive measures, including heavy financial penalties and strict disciplinary actions, going as far as withdrawing an institution’s right to award degrees. While accountability in higher education is undoubtedly important, this excessive focus on punishment rather than support and capacity-building reflects a corporate-style, disciplinary regulatory mindset. Any meaningful framework for accountability must also consider the financial realities of institutions.
Public educational institutions—especially state universities—have been struggling for years due to sustained funding cuts and policy neglect by governments. If punitive action is applied mechanically, it would punish institutions not for their failures, but for the government’s own withdrawal of support. At the same time, the bill remains silent on a crucial question: what happens to the students if an institution’s degree-awarding powers are revoked?
On the other hand, the bill appears to offer extraordinary freedom to private institutions and even facilitates the establishment of foreign universities. In the absence of strong safeguards, this opens the door to unchecked commercialisation, where private and foreign players are free to exploit students and their parents through high fees and profit-driven practices. Instead of strengthening public higher education, the bill risks accelerating its privatisation under the misleading banner of autonomy.
The centralisation of higher education and repeated attempts to dismantle the UGC are not new developments. Earlier governments, including the UPA and later the BJP-led government, have made similar efforts. The proposal to establish the National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) had to be withdrawn by the UPA government due to widespread opposition from the academic community. Subsequently, the BJP government proposed the Higher Education Empowerment Regulatory Agency (HEERA) and later, in 2018, spoke of bringing in the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI), which was intended to replace the UGC and the AICTE. These proposals were met with strong criticism from across the spectrum, and the government was forced to abandon them. The same idea also formed a key component of the Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA).
At its core, this demand has long been pushed by Indian corporate houses and foreign capital. Their aim has been to bring the entire higher education system under central control, creating conditions that would allow them to extract massive profits from so-called “Indian higher education.” Seen in this historical context, the current bill is not an isolated initiative but part of a long-standing project to open up higher education to large-scale commercial exploitation under the cover of reform.
Overall, the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill represents a fundamental structural shift in Indian higher education. From a system grounded in public accountability and social responsibility to a centralised, techno-bureaucratic, and business-friendly model of governance. Behind the language of autonomy, excellence, and reform, the bill weakens federalism, sidelines democratic participation, and deepens the commodification of education. Rather than strengthening public higher education, this framework risks transforming universities into tightly regulated service providers that are more accountable to rankings, accreditation metrics, and central authority than to society, students, and the constitutional values that higher education is meant to uphold.