New education Bill: Centralised authority in a concurrent subject
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhikshan Bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha and referred to a parliamentary committee, is being presented as a much-needed corrective to India’s fragmented higher-education regulatory framework. Its stated objective of simplifying oversight and eliminating overlapping authorities addresses long-standing concerns. However, the Bill also raises issues that warrant close scrutiny by parliament and the academic community.
By replacing multiple regulators with a single apex body supported by three councils, the Bill centralises decision-making to a significant degree. This invites questions about whether the promise of streamlined governance comes at the cost of the federal character of higher education, a subject on the Constitution’s Concurrent List. State universities, which cater to the majority of India’s students, may find their scope for academic and administrative decision-making constrained by nationally-determined standards, frameworks, and compliance mechanisms—even when these are formally described as non-binding.
The emphasis on promoting Bharatiya knowledge systems and languages is another notable feature. Engagement with India’s intellectual traditions is valuable, but the legislation offers little clarity on how such engagement will remain open, scholarly, and optional rather than prescriptive. In the absence of explicit safeguards, ‘Indianisation’ risks becoming a malleable label shaped by political priorities rather than informed academic consensus.
The regulatory architecture also reveals internal tensions. On the one hand, institutions are promised greater autonomy through accreditation and public disclosure. On the other, the Regulatory Council is vested with expansive enforcement powers, including the authority to levy substantial fines, recommend the removal of personnel, suspend degree-awarding powers, or even initiate closure. If exercised without restraint, such powers may foster compliance driven by caution rather than genuine institutional improvement.
The provision allowing the Centre to supersede the commission or councils includes procedural checks. Nevertheless, it reinforces the perception that ultimate authority rests with the executive. When viewed alongside the government’s decisive role in appointing key office-holders, claims of institutional independence appear less persuasive. Separating funding from regulation is, in principle, a sound move. Yet, retaining financial control within the Union education ministry creates the possibility of indirect pressure on institutions. Clearly defined and publicly articulated criteria for funding are, therefore, essential. Finally, the clause permitting the existing regulatory standards to continue until new ones are notified suggests continuity rather than clarity, potentially adding to institutional uncertainty. If the Bill is to genuinely strengthen higher education, these concerns must be addressed directly.