India’s higher education overhaul proposes single regulator replacing UGC AICTE

India’s education system has long remained under the shadow of a colonial framework designed to serve British interests. Even after Independence, the same system continued with only minor alterations. The new education bill, however, seeks to discard this legacy and mark a clear break from the past. It also aims to simplify the governance of education by bringing together various institutions responsible for regulating and framing policies for the country’s higher education under a single umbrella.

The Union Cabinet’s approval of the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhikshan Bill is a definitive step towards restructuring higher education governance. By replacing the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) with a single regulator, the government wants to align higher education policy with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 by a simplified single regulatory framework. At its heart, the bill seeks to end the long-standing overlapping that has defined Indian higher education.

A single umbrella regulator promises clarity — one set of standards, one accreditation framework and one point of accountability for higher education, excluding medical and law disciplines. Among the bill’s key highlights is the consolidation of regulation, accreditation and quality assurance under one commission. In theory, fewer bureaucratic silos should translate into faster approvals and reduce compliance burdens and greater flexibility for institutions to offer interdisciplinary programmes. It frames higher education reform as central to India’s development — linking universities not just to degrees but to skills, innovation and nation-building. For students, the new system promises quality benchmarks and makes and degrees more comparable across institutions.

Yet, the bill also raises legitimate concerns. The concentration of regulatory power in a single body risks replacing multiple small bottlenecks with a large one. This would require a robust regime of checks and balances. If it remains overly centralised or ministry-driven, the reform could end up strengthening bureaucratic control. Another important issue is funding. While regulation is being unified, financial oversight remains with the Department of Higher Education. Unless a separate Higher Education Funding Authority is created, it would render governing reforms meaningless as academic priorities must be backed by adequate and timely funding. Without transparent, performance-linked funding mechanisms, institutional autonomy may remain limited in practice.

Besides, technical institutions and teacher education, specific needs of institutions could be ignored. Ensuring domain expertise within the new regulator will be crucial to prevent standardisation from turning into oversimplification. If implemented with transparency, it could unlock long-pending reforms and align Indian universities with global best practices else it could remain yet another policy decision which could not be realised.