1 hour ago
7
Months after introducing the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, with a primary objective to separate grants-disbursal powers from the higher education regulatory framework to minimise conflict of interest, the Education Ministry seems to have changed its mind.
On Tuesday (March 17, 2026), it told the Joint Committee of Parliament examining the Bill that a UGC-like grants-disbursal mechanism will now be “devised and adopted under” the proposed Shiksha Adhishthan, without offering any specific details.
This came even as Opposition MPs on the committee slammed the Bill in its current form, terming it “skeletal”. They also questioned the government about the increasing centralisation of higher education regulation proposed in the Bill, the sidelining of State representation which will be decided by the Centre, and the future funding mechanism for public universities. The government insisted that the Bill promotes “cooperative federalism”, arguing that it offers more representation to State governments and institutions than the existing framework.
The Bill, introduced in December 2025, seeks to replace the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education, and the National Council for Teacher Education, in an overhaul of India’s higher education regulatory structure driven by the National Education Policy, 2020.
Conflicts of interest
However, the Education Ministry has now submitted that the grants-disbursal powers that the UGC currently exercises will, in fact, come “under” the Shiksha Adhishthan.
Ministry officials told the panel, led by BJP MP D. Purandeshwari, that the UGC currently disburses monthly grants to Central Universities from funds released to it by the Department of Higher Education. It also releases funds under its own schemes, based on quality standards, accreditation status, and NIRF ranking.
“Similar qualitative processes/systems shall be devised and adopted under Shiksha Adhishthan,” the government told the panel.
In the Bill introduced in Parliament last December, however, the Education Ministry had said, “It is proposed to keep the funding to the centrally funded higher educational institutes out of the purview of the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan... to ensure that the Standards Council, Regulatory Council and the Accreditation Council fully discharge their specific domain functions.”
Officials had said this was being done consciously to minimise conflicts of interest, adding that the Ministry would devise a mechanism for funding universities in due time.
Undermining federalism
The Joint Committee, which held its fourth sitting on Tuesday, has 12 members from the BJP and 10 members from Opposition parties, including the Congress, the DMK, the Trinamool Congress, the Samajwadi Party, and the Shiv Sena (UBT).
During this sitting, MPs from the Congress, DMK, and Trinamool Congress raised concerns about centralised control under the proposed structure, arguing that even though there is representation from States, it is the Centre that selects the State representatives. This would allow the Centre to set up a “super-regulator”, they said, warning that this was against the principles of federalism.
Skeletal Bill
Opposition members also argued that the proposed legislation is “skeletal” in nature, requiring most of the details to be figured out by the government during the drafting of the Rules. Some members argued this was akin to asking that the Bill be approved without presenting the whole scope of what the government plans to do.
On funding, the Opposition members expressed concerns about funding to public universities becoming dependent on loans and borrowing, citing the ongoing implementation of the Higher Education Funding Agency structure. This will eventually pass the financial burden to students, they warned, making higher education accessible only to the affluent.
In its submissions to the Joint Committee, the Education Ministry maintained that it is bringing this proposed regulatory framework under Entry 66 of the Union list in the Constitution, the same provision that allowed it to introduce the UGC Act, 1956.
English (US) ·