Reimagining higher education governance for India’s future 

India’s ambition to become ‘Viksit Bharat’ will depend as much on the strength of its universities as on economic growth or technological capability. As the country positions itself in areas such as climate action, clean energy, digital systems, and advanced manufacturing, higher education must produce graduates who can think across disciplines, adapt to change, and contribute to complex problem-solving. It was this broader recognition that informed the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which called for a decisive shift towards multidisciplinary education, flexible academic pathways, stronger teacher preparation, and a regulatory philosophy that is “light but tight”—enabling quality, autonomy, and innovation rather than constraining them through procedural compliance. 

It is in this context that the Union cabinet’s approval of the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhikshan Bill, 2025, should be read. The move towards a more integrated framework for higher education regulation addresses a long-standing structural issue. For decades, universities have operated under parallel oversight by the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). Each of these institutions has played a vital role in building India’s higher education system: the UGC expanded access and upheld academic standards; AICTE created nationally recognised frameworks for technical and professional education; and NCTE brought much-needed structure and minimum norms to teacher training. Yet, as institutions evolved—offering programmes that cut across disciplines and modes of learning—this layered regulatory structure began to show its limits, producing overlapping approvals, differing norms for faculty and programmes, and administrative burdens that no longer reflect how universities actually function. NEP 2020 explicitly recognised this mismatch and argued for the separation of regulatory, accreditation, academic standard-setting, and funding functions to improve coherence and accountability. 

The challenge today is not the absence of regulation, but the absence of centralised regulatory coherence aligned with the nature of contemporary knowledge. Academic education, teacher preparation, and professional training can no longer be treated as separate tracks. High-quality learning depends on their interaction—on disciplinary depth reinforced by sound pedagogy and on technical competence grounded in academic rigour. This interdependence becomes especially clear in areas such as climate change and the energy transition. Preparing professionals for renewable energy, grid modernisation, or climate resilience requires institutions that bring together science, engineering, economics, public policy, and social understanding, alongside practical skills. NEP 2020 anticipated this reality by emphasising multidisciplinary institutions, outcome-based learning, and flexible mechanisms such as multiple entry–exit options and the Academic Bank of Credits. Fragmented oversight makes such integration harder than it needs to be. 

The growing presence of private universities adds another layer to this conversation. Over the past decade, private institutions have expanded capacity and introduced new programmes, particularly in professional and emerging fields. Their rise has also prompted legitimate concerns about quality and accountability. NEP 2020 was clear that public and private institutions must be governed by the same standards of academic integrity, transparency, and outcomes. A regulatory system divided across multiple authorities struggles to apply such parity in practice. A more unified, outcome-focused framework offers a way to move beyond debates about ownership and towards shared expectations of public purpose and academic credibility. 

The proposed framework under the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) seeks to respond to these realities by clarifying roles rather than concentrating power. By separating regulatory oversight from accreditation, academic standard-setting, and funding, it aligns closely with NEP 2020’s recommendation to avoid conflicts of interest and excessive centralization. The intent is not uniformity, but coherence—ensuring that institutions are evaluated on what they achieve in terms of learning outcomes, research quality, and societal impact, rather than on procedural checklists. 

For India, the implications go beyond administrative reform. As the country seeks a stronger presence in global research networks and innovation ecosystems, the credibility and effectiveness of its universities will increasingly shape its international standing. An integrated approach to governance can help shift higher education from compliance-driven functioning to outcome-driven excellence. In this sense, the current reform must be seen not as a departure from earlier thinking, but as a test of whether the core principles articulated in NEP 2020—trust in institutions, focus on outcomes, and respect for academic diversity—can be translated into practice. 

The larger question, then, is not whether reform is needed, but whether India can design a higher education system that is coherent without being rigid, enabling without being intrusive, and ambitious without sacrificing diversity. How this balance is struck will determine not only the future of Indian universities but India’s place in the global knowledge economy as it moves towards becoming a truly developed nation. 

END OF ARTICLE