Teachers’ body opposes HECI–HEFA framework

The Indian National Teachers’ Congress (INTEC) on Monday strongly opposed the Union Government’s proposed overhaul of higher education governance.

INTEC warned that replacing the University Grants Commission (UGC) with the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) and transferring funding to the Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) threatens to undermine public universities and make higher education inaccessible by prioritising institutional debt over public grants.  In a detailed statement, INTEC said the proposed framework, drawing from the 2018 draft HECI Bill and recent reports, marks a fundamental shift in the philosophy of higher education. The teachers’ body argued that instead of improving quality, the changes would centralise authority, commercialise education, and erode the public character of universities.  At the core of INTEC’s criticism is the removal of UGC’s grant-giving role. The organisation pointed out that the draft HECI Bill contains no provision for public grants to universities and colleges. Funding responsibilities are proposed to be transferred to HEFA, which operates on a loan-based model. Under this system, institutions would be required to borrow funds for infrastructure and research and repay them within fixed timeframes.

INTEC said this transition from public grants to institutional debt would force universities to prioritise revenue generation over academic and social goals. “Funding without grants is not autonomy; it is enforced commercialisation,” the organisation said, warning that debt-driven institutions would raise fees, expand self-financed courses, and marginalise disciplines that are not market-friendly.

The teachers’ body said the proposed model would disproportionately affect students from poor and marginalised backgrounds, including those from OBC, SC, and ST communities, who rely heavily on public universities. It described the move as a violation of the constitutional promise of equitable access to education and resources. INTEC also expressed concern over the concentration of regulatory power under HECI.

The draft bill empowers the proposed commission to set learning outcomes, academic standards, fee norms, and eligibility criteria for vice-chancellors and faculty. It also mandates that HECI follow policy directions issued by the central Government, with the Government’s decision being final in case of disagreement. “This effectively undermines the autonomy of both universities and the regulator,” INTEC said, warning that academic decision-making would come under the control of the political executive. The organisation further criticised provisions that allow HECI to revoke authorisation and order the closure of institutions deemed non-compliant. It stated that such punitive powers, including criminal penalties for institutional leaders, would criminalise educational administration instead of addressing gaps through public investment and academic support.

INTEC argued that jointly operating HECI and HEFA would create a coercive cycle: public funding withdrawal would pressure institutions into commercial practices and stricter regulation, which in turn would drive weaker universities to closure, consolidation, or privatisation.