NDA-ruled States, including Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Meghalaya, are among those that have raised objections to provisions in the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, telling a parliamentary panel that the proposed legislation would centralise powers over higher education regulation.
The Bill proposes a structural overhaul of higher education in the country by repealing the statutory Acts governing the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and replacing them with a single apex body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA).
The Bill is currently under review by a joint parliamentary committee headed by BJP MP D. Purandeswari. The Hindu accessed submissions made to the parliamentary panel, which is in the final stages of preparing its report.
Apart from State governments, Central and State universities and institutes also criticised the Bill in their submissions to the panel. They have expressed concern about the Centre’s powers under the proposed law, the absence of State representation in the regulatory structure, a lack of clarity about its scope, and worries about the transition process as the UGC, AICTE, and NCTE are wound up.
Bypassing States
Some of the strongest objections came from Andhra Pradesh, which is ruled by the Telugu Desam Party, a BJP ally. Andhra Pradesh argued that many of the provisions in the Bill could make the State’s legislative competence in higher education “a dead letter”. It has sought mandatory consultation with State governments before decisions affecting State universities are taken. The State also cautioned against Clause 11 that allows the Regulatory Council to bypass State universities in granting degrees, saying it could lead to “constitutional friction”.
Also Read A Bill that reimagines higher education regulation
The State government further suggested a clause explicitly preventing the Centre from taking action prejudicial to the autonomy, functioning, and governance of State institutes and universities. It also proposed mandatory consultation with the State before any action is taken against a State institution.
BJP-ruled Madhya Pradesh has also raised concerns over what it described as limited State representation in the proposed regulatory council.
The Meghalaya government — led by the National People’s Party, which is a BJP ally — recommended an explicit provision defining the respective powers of the Centre and the States. It proposed that the Centre be responsible for coordination, standards, accreditation, and quality assurance, while States retain authority over the establishment, governance, administration, staffing, financing, and overall functioning of State universities.
‘Arbitrary interventions’
Central universities and institutes such as the Banaras Hindu University (BHU), the Central University of Rajasthan and the Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Chittoor, as well as State universities in Assam, Maharashtra, and Jammu and Kashmir, have objected to provisions that they say could increase centralisation.
Several institutions told the panel that clauses requiring the new regulatory structure to follow directions from the Centre represented the Bill’s “most critical vulnerability”.
While some universities cautioned that dismantling the UGC, AICTE, and NCTE simultaneously could cause “significant institutional disruption”, others argued that the Bill concentrated regulatory powers and created the possibility of “arbitrary interventions”. Institutions called for phased implementation, parliamentary oversight of powers exercised by the Centre under the Bill, and mandatory notice and consultation with State governments before such powers are invoked.
Undermining regulatory independence
BHU noted that Clause 45 gives finality to the Centre’s policy directions and binds the VBSA to them, “effectively subordinating the regulator to the executive”, while Clause 47 empowers the Centre to supersede the VBSA and dissolve it. The university told the committee that these provisions risked turning an independent regulator into “an arm of the government of the day”.
Clause 45 empowers the Centre to issue binding policy directions to the Commission, gives it the final say on what constitutes a policy matter, and allows it to assign additional functions. Clause 47 allows the Centre to suspend or supersede the Commission or its councils for up to a year.
IIIT Chittoor said a possible implication of Clause 45 was the expansion of the central government's influence across the three councils proposed under the structure, which could end up shaping institutional academic operations. SNDT Women’s University, Pune, said that without checks and balances, consultation and parliamentary oversight, the provisions could lead to “excessive centralisation”.
Expanded Central authority
Congress-ruled Telangana said the Bill’s structure does not adequately recognise the role of State governments. It sought the deletion of Clause 11, which empowers the Central government-backed regulatory council to authorise independent accredited colleges to grant degrees directly, bypassing the State government.
The State government also argued that the Bill neither empowers the regulatory council to regulate fees nor preserves the existing framework, potentially allowing fee escalation.
Telangana’s Higher Education Department described Clause 45 as the “single most centralising clause” in the Bill, calling it a “self-judging clause” that gives the Centre the final authority in disputes with councils under the VBSA framework. The department argued that the provision expanded Central authority over the structure without granting State governments corresponding powers over matters relating to their own universities.
Published - July 09, 2026 07:48 pm IST
