6 min readMar 24, 2026 06:30 AM IST First published on: Mar 24, 2026 at 06:30 AM ISTAs a former member of the University Grants Commission (UGC), I would not shed a tear on the abolition of this apex higher education body proposed by the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) bill. The UGC is a broken, dysfunctional and counterproductive system. I would have happily supported the new VBSA architecture if the UGC was replaced by a new regulatory architecture promised by the New Education Policy (NEP), 2020: “Independent and empowered” bodies that institutionalise “checks-and-balances in the system, minimise conflicts of interest, and eliminate concentrations of power”.Sadly, the proposed bill, currently under review by the Standing Committee of the Parliament, does exactly the opposite. The new regulatory architecture it proposes is a recipe for concentration of power that can only lead to centralisation, bureaucratisation and commercialisation of higher education — possibly worse than the present UGC system, hard as it is to imagine that.AdvertisementBetween 2010 and 2013, as an honorary member of the Commission, I had a ringside view of all that was wrong with higher education management. The UGC was as corrupt and inefficient as the infamous PWD or DDA, with rampant conflicts of interest. Steered by academic bureaucrats who would stand up to receive a phone call from the joint secretary in the ministry, its autonomy existed only on paper. Even if it had some well-meaning professors on committees, the institution had little capacity or domain expertise needed to regulate the vast ocean of colleges, universities, deemed universities, institutions of national importance and whatnots. The then minister Kapil Sibal tried to clean the system by appointing some members with academic credentials and integrity, but the changes we could bring about were cosmetic, if any. My singular achievement was to push through the first-ever conflict of interest policy in the UGC. Ironically, that very policy was invoked to remove me from the Commission on the charge of political activism. The system was rotten from the very top. It needed a drastic overhaul.This was not just my personal impression. This is exactly what a committee headed by Professor Yashpal had concluded in 2009. The report of this “Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education” makes for a salutary reading in today’s context. The committee had recommended winding up the UGC and the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) and replacing these with a National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER), an apex body that would end fragmented regulation and bureaucratic overlap. But the objective of the new regulative structure was to promote academic autonomy by ending “inspection raj” , replacing rigid prior approvals with academic self-regulation and by reducing micromanagement and bureaucratic discretion. The Yashpal committee focused on the public purpose of the university by providing for generous state funding and strict regulation of profiteering and commercialisation.The VBSA moves in the opposite direction. If this becomes the law of the land, it would be a triple whammy: It would take away whatever remains of academic autonomy of the faculty, the institution and of state governments. By doing away with any mandatory provision or institutional design for state funding or social justice, the bill washes its hands of the public purpose of higher education.AdvertisementThough it is presented as a new piece of legislation, the VBSA bill is actually a reincarnation of The Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) bill that was introduced in Parliament in 2018. The government was forced to withdraw that version, thanks to sharp political push back on the apprehension of centralisation, loss of autonomy and funding. The new bill does not address the key problem of concentration of power; it simply creates a more complex institutional design to achieve the same end. Instead of one all-powerful HECI, now we have an umbrella body called VBSA that supervises three separate Councils in charge of regulation, accreditation and academic standards. But the basic impulse remains unaltered, in some ways stronger than earlier. This can be seen in four key provisions.First, there is no autonomy in this new institutional set-up. Four separate institutions are a smokescreen; these are separate but not independent. The VBSA and the three councils are identical in their structure. The chair and members are to be appointed entirely by the central government — including the academics who represent state universities — which can also remove them and suspend or supersede the entire commission at its will. Some IAS officers will control all the strings at the behest of their political masters.Second, contrary to the promise of “light and tight” regulation in the NEP 2020, the VBSA now has more coercive intervention powers than the UGC or any other regulatory body before it. On the recommendation of its Councils, the VBSA can exercise draconian powers to penalise institutions and their office bearers, derecognise a degree and recommend the closing down of a college or university. The appeal against any such decision, taken at the behest of the central government, would lie with the central government itself.you may likeThird, and perhaps the worst feature of the new bill, is its complete disregard of the federal structure. State governments, which still fund and supervise higher education institutions that have more than 80 per cent of students, have no say in the running of VBSA, except for one token and rotating seat in a 15-member body and not even that in the three councils. The 2018 bill had provided for a weak consultative structure, an advisory council comprising the Union Education Minister with chairpersons of all State Higher Education Councils. The VBSA bill does away with even that pretence. So, while the state governments will set up colleges and universities, the central government will decide upon their recruitment, their syllabi, their functioning and perhaps their very existence.Finally, it is worth noticing that the present bill, like its 2018 predecessor, delinks regulation from funding, but does not say a word about where and how the funding will come from. Nor is there any provision for regulating equity, access and non-discrimination in institutions of higher education. This conspicuous silence tells us something about the operational philosophy underlying the new legislation. It is a mechanism for formalising the retreat of the state from the public purpose of higher education at a moment when millions of first-generation college goers need it the most.The writer is member, Swaraj India, and national convenor, Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan. Views are personal