By Nalinikanta Dhar
In line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the Union Government has introduced the Developed India Education Institutions Bill–2025 in Parliament, proposing the creation of a National Higher Education Regulatory Council. In a vast and diverse country like India—marked by historical, social, and regional variations—there is an undeniable need for a coherent, democratic, and inclusive regulatory framework that ensures equity, transparency, and justice in higher education. India has previously witnessed the benefits of independent regulatory reforms. Institutions such as the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI, 1992), the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI, 1997), and the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA, 2016) have largely functioned with minimal political interference and have delivered tangible public benefits through timely reforms. The proposed council will comprise three interlinked verticals: a Regulatory Council, an Accreditation Council, and a Standards Council. Institutions of national importance such as IITs, IIMs, and NITs will also come under this framework.
Also Read
One of the stated objectives is to address persistent issues such as delayed approvals, overlapping regulations, excessive compliance burdens, and regulatory inconsistency caused by multiple authorities. A single regulator could potentially streamline governance and enhance efficiency. However, a significant departure from NEP 2020 is the government’s decision not to establish an independent Higher Education Financing Authority as originally envisaged. Instead, funding will remain under the direct control of the Ministry of Education. While the government argues that diversified funding sources make a single authority impractical, this raises concerns about excessive centralisation of financial power. Although the regulator will not have the authority to fix fees, it will frame policies to prevent the commercialisation of education. The Bill aims to unify regulatory norms, improve transparency, and strengthen quality assurance. Strict penalties—up to Rs 2 crore—and even cancellation of affiliation are proposed for violations. These measures may help curb malpractices such as fake certificates, irregular admissions, and poor infrastructure, particularly in the private sector.
Yet, many structural challenges in higher education remain unresolved: outdated curricula, limited emphasis on research, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving; rote-based examination systems; weak industry-academia linkages; bureaucratic interference; and rampant commercialisation. Social inequities continue to obstruct inclusive access, especially for Dalits, backward classes, and marginalised communities. While the Bill has several positive features, apprehensions persist regarding over-centralisation, erosion of university autonomy, and transitional challenges in implementation. Questions also remain about adequate representation of women, minorities, and tribal communities in the new regulatory structure, and whether regional needs will be meaningfully addressed.
Despite having over 1,300 universities and 52,000 colleges, India’s global standing in higher education and research remains weak. Compared to Asian peers like China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, India lags significantly in patents and innovation. Every year, Indian students spend nearly Rs 30,000 crore in foreign exchange on overseas education. With developed countries tightening visa norms, Indian students face increasing uncertainty and costs. If India is to realise its vision of becoming a $25–30 trillion economy by 2047, it must achieve self-reliance in high-quality education and advanced technical knowledge. Improving higher education is impossible without strengthening school education. Alarming findings from the 2024 AS ER survey show that only 44.8 per cent of Class V students can read a Class II-level text, and only 30.7 per cent can solve basic arithmetic. The proposed higher education regulator must therefore act as a bridge between school education reforms and higher learning. Ultimately, policy intent alone does not guarantee success. What matters is effective implementation, continuous evaluation, and corrective reform. As the Bill is currently under Parliamentary Standing Committee scrutiny, it is imperative to incorporate stakeholder feedback and expert opinion to build a balanced, inclusive, and outcome-oriented regulatory institution.
The writer is an expert in Economics. Views are personal.
