OPINION | Constitutional overreach of India’s new higher education bill

(File image)

• Bill aims to centralize higher education regulation in India
• Bill replaces UGC, AICTE, NCTE with VBSA, sparking federal overreach criticism
• Financial powers shift to Education Ministry, reducing university autonomy

Did our AI summary help?

Recently, the government tabled the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025 in Lok Sabha, amidst furore over the provisions which may be centralising the entire higher education system in India, giving unbridled powers to the regulator to penalise any institute not following the mandate of the regulator.

The Bill gains prominence as it seeks to enforce the controversial National Education Policy (NEP) which sought establishment of a central regulator for its enforcement.

An umbrella body

Essentially, the Bill seeks to create an umbrella body named Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) replacing the University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

The Bill has been criticised by the Opposition Parties on its executive overreach, violation of the federal principle and a blatant assault on the public education system. The following legal issues arise from the text of the Bill.

Constitutional provision on the scope of central government’s power

First, ‘Education’ finds itself as a subject in both Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule which lays down the legislative powers of the central and state governments respectively.

Entry 66 states that the central government shall have the power over ‘co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.’

On the other hand, Entry 25 provides law making powers over ‘education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List 1’.

Therefore, Entry 25 of the List III must be read with Entry 66 of the List I. A plain reading would indicate that Entry 25 circumscribes the powers of central government over education by subjecting it to Entry 66 which mandates that the powers of central government are only for ‘coordination and determination of standards of education’.

Areas of overreach

However, the Bill seeks to overreach the powers granted under the two entries to the central government. The Bill creates an authority, Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) which has been given unbridled powers to impose standards and issue directions to the educational institutions which must be followed, non-compliance of which may result in imposition of hefty penalties including closure of the institution.

For instance, the central government, through VBSA, can direct that the education must be imparted in Hindi and even non-Hindi speaking states would have to adhere to the same, lest hefty penalties may be imposed upon them or their recognition may be revoked.

Federal transgression

Thus, though the Constitution permits the central government for ‘coordination and determination of standards’, the Bill enables it to minutely regulate every aspect of its functioning. Such an endeavour violates the principle of distribution of powers between states and centre, an essential element of federalism in India.

Excessive delegation of executive powers

Second, the provisions of the Bill are vague and confer a wide power of rule-making on the VBSA thereby leading to excessive delegation of executive powers which is not permitted. The VBSA has been empowered to make rules and regulations for defining standards of education, accreditation framework, imposition of hefty penalties including closure of the institution, supersession etc. completely at its whims without any guidelines or safeguards.

Such a Bill is considered a ‘skeleton legislation’ which only provides the brief framework of the legislation and leaves the rest to the rule making powers of the executive. A skeleton legislation has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be unconstitutional as the Parliament cannot delegate its essential legislative duty by delegating the core functions of a legislation to the executive, especially when they concern the rights of the individuals or institutions.

UGC’s financial powers transferred to education ministry

Third, the financial powers of UGC have been withdrawn and granted to the Ministry of Education. As a result, the central government would hereafter control the funding or grants given to the universities across the country. Such a measure would compel the universities to strictly comply with the directions of the central government, as unreasonable as they may be, to obtain funding. Therefore, the autonomy that the universities enjoyed is sought to be taken away.

Inadequate representation to states

Fourth, the Bill does not provide for adequate representation of the states in the Commission i.e. VBSA. According to the Bill, the Commission shall contain 12 members, each of whom shall be appointed by the central government. The Commission would only have two academicians from state higher educational institutions serving as part-time members.

Further, these state representatives may be from the BJP ruled states only, thereby denying representation to other states ruled by opposition parties. There is no provision for direct nomination by state governments and no rotation of members among states. Therefore, the Bill may violate the federal principle wherein the central government cannot illegally curtail the powers of the state government.

Lastly, there have been objections to the name of the Bill. Article 348(1)(b) provides that the authoritative texts of all Bills introduced in the Parliament shall be in English language. Therefore, the name of the Bill i.e. Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill may be in violation of Article 348 of the Constitution.

Essentially, the Bill attempts to trample upon the autonomy of the universities and higher education institutions in India, with a centralising streak eliminating the autonomy exercised by such institutions. This intrusion in the autonomy of academic institutions will certainly hamper the academic freedom which is essential for promoting intellectual discourse in the country. In fact, Article 51A casts a fundamental duty on the citizens to develop a scientific temper and spirit of inquiry. Such a Bill may directly contradict the spirit of Article 51A.

(Siddharth Srivastava is an Advocate, Supreme Court of India. Views are personal and do not represent the stand of Moneycontrol)