UGC needs reform. But the new higher education bill is not the answer
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
An opinion piece analyzes the proposed Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) bill, which aims to replace the University Grants Commission (UGC). The author, a former UGC member, argues that while the UGC is flawed, the VBSA bill is a regressive step. It is seen as a reincarnation of the withdrawn Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) Bill of 2018 and is criticized for contradicting the reformist spirit of the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 by excessively centralizing power.
UPSC Perspectives
Governance
This bill signifies a major shift in the governance of higher education. The stated goal of the was to create a "light but tight" regulatory framework with independent and empowered bodies. The had also recommended replacing the UGC and AICTE with a new commission to promote academic autonomy and end the 'inspection raj'. However, the VBSA bill is criticized for creating a highly centralized structure. Instead of fostering institutional autonomy, the bill proposes a new architecture where the central government appoints and can remove all key members, effectively concentrating power. Critics argue that the proposed body's draconian powers to penalize, derecognize degrees, and close institutions, with appeals heard by the central government itself, eliminates checks and balances and promotes bureaucratization over academic self-regulation.
Polity
The proposed VBSA bill raises significant concerns regarding India's federal structure. Through the [42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976], education was moved from the State List to the Concurrent List, giving both the Centre and states a role in legislation and administration. The article argues that the VBSA bill severely undermines this principle of cooperative federalism. State governments, which fund and oversee institutions catering to over 80% of students, are given almost no say in the proposed regulatory body. The bill allegedly removes even the weak consultative mechanism that was present in the earlier . By allowing a centrally-controlled body to dictate recruitment, syllabi, and the very existence of state-established universities, the bill represents a significant encroachment on the legislative and administrative domain of the states.
Social
The bill is analyzed for its impact on the public purpose of higher education, which is intrinsically linked to social justice, equity, and access. The author contends that the bill formalizes the retreat of the state from these responsibilities at a time when millions of first-generation learners require support. By delinking regulation from funding, the bill is conspicuously silent on financial provisions and mechanisms to ensure non-discrimination and access for marginalized communities. This silence is interpreted as a move towards greater commercialization and privatization of higher education. Such a shift could make education unaffordable, hindering social mobility and contradicting the constitutional vision of providing equitable educational opportunities, a key aspect of the Directive Principles of State Policy.