India governance reforms spark fears of ‘over-centralised’ control

India’s government is preparing to table legislation that would overhaul the way universities are governed, replacing several longstanding regulators with a single authority in a move that experts say could reduce duplication but risks deepening centralisation and creating new conflicts with states.

The Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) Bill is slated for introduction during the winter session of parliament, which opened on 1 December.

The proposal would consolidate the responsibilities of the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) into one body overseeing all non-medical and non-legal higher education.

Under the planned model, HECI would oversee three core functions including regulation, accreditation and the setting of academic and professional standards.

Funding powers would remain elsewhere in government rather than sitting with the new commission.

The draft structure aligns with the country’s National Education Policy 2020, which called for a clearer division of responsibilities and for long-criticised regulatory fragmentation to be addressed.

But some observers say the shift may create fresh tensions even as it resolves old ones.

Eldho Mathews, programme officer (internationalisation of higher education) at the Kerala State Higher Education Council, told Times Higher Education that the “current regulatory system for Indian higher education is highly fragmented”, involving the UGC and “multiple professional councils overseeing higher education institutions that offer different programmes”.

“In this context,” Mathews said, “creating a unified regulator like HECI may help reduce overlap. But it also raises several concerns. One major worry is that in a unified structure the chances of shaping regulatory norms without adequate consultation with the state governments are high.

Given education is the responsibility of both the union and state governments, “an over-centralised regulator therefore raises questions about the possibility of HECI’s decisions conflicting with state-level priorities”, said Matthews.

Pushkar, director of the International Centre Goa, said the reform had the potential to simplify a notoriously cumbersome system but warned that structural consolidation would not automatically remedy deeper problems.

“I think that doing away with multiple regulatory bodies and creating a unified one is a positive step and in principle and over time, may simplify things for the better,” he said.

“The criticism that it will create a monolithic authority is premature. It is possible to have multiple regulatory bodies all of which are said to be slow, inflexible and inefficient. By the same token, the new regulator may continue to be afflicted by the same problems as the older ones but there is also the possibility that it will perform better.”

He added that the effects on autonomy and quality would depend entirely on regulatory practice rather than organisational charts.

“The way to understand the role of the regulator is how it interprets and applies existing rules with consistency, and whether it does so in a manner that strengthens academic quality and transparency across institutions or in ways that it reduces institutional autonomy and stifles innovation. I would guess that you will see a bit of both happening.”

Pushkar also warned that the transition period could be turbulent. “At an institutional level, when you change the rules, create new institutions or merge existing ones as in the case of HECI, things change not just for colleges and faculty and others but also for the people running the institution,” he said.

“I think it will take a few years before both sides develop a good working understanding of the new institutional arrangement and rules. In the meanwhile, there will be conflicts and controversies over a whole range of issues.”