The Indian government has referred the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill 2025 (VBSA Bill) to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). This action follows significant opposition from Members of Parliament (MPs) and various stakeholders. Critics expressed concerns over the bill’s proposed “excessive centralisation” and potential “violation of the federal structure” within India’s higher education system.
Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the VBSA Bill, previously known as the Higher Education Commission (HECI) Bill 2025 , in Parliament on Monday. Opposition benches immediately criticized the legislation.
Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Kiren Rijiju moved to form the JPC. He cited requests from several MPs for further deliberation on the extensive bill. Digvijaya Singh, Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, had also written to Rijiju, recommending the bill’s referral to a panel.
Bill’s Core Purpose: Regulatory Overhaul
The VBSA Bill aims to replace three existing regulatory bodies: the University Grants Commission (UGC) , the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) , and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) . It proposes a single new body with a significantly different structure and functions.
Under the Adhishthan, three new councils are planned: the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Viniyaman Parishad (regulatory council), the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Gunvatta Parishad (accreditation council), and the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Manak Parishad (standards council).
Concerns Over Centralization and Federalism
Congress MP Manish Tewari was among the first to voice strong opposition. He stated the VBSA Bill 2025 enforces “excessive centralisation.” Tewari argued it extends beyond setting standards to intrude into the administration, affiliation, establishment, and closure of university campuses. He emphasized the bill undermines the institutional autonomy of state universities.
Tewari further explained the bill delegates excessive legislative power. Matters like accreditation frameworks, degree-granting authority, penalties, and institutional autonomy are left to rules, regulations, and executive direction. He called this an “abdication of essential legislative function.” The bill, he added, undermines the independence of statutory regulatory bodies by making them bound by central government policy directions.
Another Congress MP, Jothimani from Tamil Nadu, labeled the bill an “attack on the federalist structure.” She highlighted that the parliamentary standing committee on education previously noted the bill’s heavy union government composition and insufficient state representation. State public universities and their affiliated colleges account for 81% of student enrollment. Jothimani argued the policy-making body’s composition must reflect this scale. She criticized the proposal for moving away from independent regulation, giving overriding powers to the union government.
‘Hindi Imposition’ Allegations
Jothimani also raised concerns about the bill’s “excessive Sanskritisation,” calling the nomenclature a “Hindi imposition.” She noted 53 instances of Hindi names within the bill’s text. Jothimani linked this to broader language policy issues, citing Tamil Nadu’s ongoing dispute over the three-language policy in the National Education Policy (NEP).
The bill’s name change drew further scrutiny. Initially listed as the HECI Bill 2025, it became the “Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan” after clearing the Cabinet. RSP MP NK Premchandran from Kerala objected, stating he did not know the meaning of “Adhishthan.” He questioned the language, suggesting it might be Sanskrit or Hindi, and referenced Article 348 B, which mandates the authoritative text of bills to be in English.
Executive Overreach and Autonomy
MPs criticized the bill for potentially eroding the autonomy and independence of higher education institutions. A key concern, shared by critics of the VBSA Bill and its predecessor HECI Bill, is the separation of regulatory authority from funding powers. Funding responsibilities would remain with the central government, making institutions susceptible to political influence.
G Selvam, DMK MP from Tamil Nadu, echoed these objections. He stated that in the name of coordination and standards, the union government would gain entire regulation of higher education. Selvam called it “a legislation which gives arbitrary powers to the union government.”
Professor Sougata Ray, an AITC MP from West Bengal, highlighted how the bill could empower the central government to control state universities. He noted the centre could appoint vice-chancellors, an issue already contentious with governors in states like Kerala, West Bengal, and Tamil Nadu. Ray argued this bill legitimizes central control over university functioning, undermining institutional autonomy.
Procedural Concerns Raised
Sougata Ray also criticized the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs for what he called “ineptness” in the bill’s introduction. He stated MPs received bill copies late and its introduction was not initially listed on the day’s business. The supplementary list was circulated only at 1 PM on the day of introduction. Premchandran described the bill’s introduction as “bulldozed in the House.”