Can India’s higher ed system move from control to trust?

The Government of India has proposed a bill to set up the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI). First mooted in the Draft National Education Policy-2019 (DNEP-2019) and reiterated in the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, HECI was envisaged as a “large-scale and far-reaching” remedy to what ails the Indian higher education system – fragmentation, obsolescence, and over-regulation.

Traditionally, regulation in Indian higher education has been marked by a set of prescriptive norms ranging from minimum land requirements, fixed faculty-student ratios, inspection-based approvals, paperwork and so on. This input-based standard system typically favoured compliance over quality and promoted limited innovation. As a consequence, regulation was rooted in control, not collaboration.

To ensure HECI does what it was set up to do, the system needs to incorporate transparency by means of data-based governance, public disclosure, and outcome-based assessments. Equally important is the adoption of differential regulatory mechanisms.

Institutions should be regulated based on their performance, not through a one-size-fits-all approach. With real autonomy, credible accreditation, and central government cooperation, these principles can transform the sector from a system based on control to one based on trust.

The Draft NEP-2019 sees HECI as a mechanism to ensure integrity, transparency, and efficiency in higher education and its institutions by having “only one regulator for all higher education, including professional education”.

The DNEP-2019 and the NEP-2020 reiterated this and advocated that regulation should be “light but tight” and “outcome-based”, with self-disclosure and accountability at the core.

For decades institutions have buckled under the weight of three or more overlapping regulatory authorities: the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) and the National Council Technical Education (NCTE), each with its conflicting mandates and overlapping procedures.

The HECI Bill proposes to replace this complex system with a single, transparent, and operationally independent authority. According to the proposed HECI – regulation, accreditation, funding, and academic standards are segregated along four verticals, namely, the National Higher Education Regulatory Authority (NHERA), the National Accreditation Council (NAC), the Higher Education Grants Council (HEGC), and the General Education Council (GEC).

This split is more than just bureaucratic re-engineering: it’s a philosophy that moves from control to enablement. Such a shift is essential to ensure the regulatory system empowers institutions rather than ‘disempowering’ them.

The dilemma of federalism: One policy, many realities

Education falls under the Concurrent List, meaning both the central government and states share legislative responsibility. This dual control often leads to fragmented regulation and inconsistent implementation, particularly affecting state-run universities that educate the majority of Indian students.

NEP-2020 envisages a spirit of cooperative federalism, with states and national priorities in education needing to converge. However, application in each state varies greatly due to differences in political commitment, administrative capability, and financial sufficiency. As a matter of fact, state universities are often plagued by too much bureaucracy, political appointments, and not getting enough funding.

For the HECI framework to be successful, it is critical to ensure that the role of states is not marginalised. On the contrary, they must be proactively involved in the preparation of implementation roadmaps, the formulation of State Higher Education Councils and Commissions, and bringing reformulations to university acts in alignment with the NEP vision.

Autonomy: Trusting Institutions to lead

Central to the NEP’s philosophy is the freedom of each higher education institution to govern itself – academically, financially, and administratively. Today, however, the system is one of micromanagement and has little scope for decision-making. NEP-2020 seeks graded autonomy, given on the basis of accreditation and performance.

Institutions could create curriculums, handle finances, recruit talent, and innovate with full public disclosure. Further, regulatory change will also need to be supported by capacity building, transparent funding models, and protection from the tentacles of political interference. Autonomy is not a measure of virtue; it is a condition of excellence.

The passage of the HECI Bill

The HECI Bill needs to be enacted as a clear and widespread piece of legislation. Its provisions need to clearly specify the functions of the new regulatory verticals and prevent any overreach or duplication. Equally importantly, the bill should respect the principle of federal cooperation so that states are not just implementers but share the ownership of this new regulatory edifice.

Further, there is a necessity to overhaul accrediting and funding agencies and processes.

Accreditation needs to be more than just a one-time badge to wear but should reflect a system of ongoing quality assurance. Similarly, public funding will need to see measurable outputs such as: quality teaching; equal opportunities; research productivity; and so on.

Lastly, and most importantly, we need to strengthen our institutions. The transition from a micromanaging culture to one based on trust and accountability is not open for discussion. Autonomy for academic, administrative, and financial decisions at higher education institutions, buttressed by investments in digital infrastructure, governance frameworks, and leadership training, is vital.

A shift to a trust-based form of regulation presumes competencies and integrity on the part of institutions. Many higher education institutions do not have the infrastructure, leadership, or human capital in place to provide quality outputs, demanding close guidance to ensure quality output and outcome.

The other significant challenge is capacity building. Institutions will need help with matured data-driven governance models in order to make a system that is based on trust work. But without significant investments in these areas, not only will autonomy become a burden, it will also be a disaster waiting to happen.

In other words, the Indian higher education regulatory reform is evolving towards a mature model of governance, one that only entrusts institutions with the responsibility for quality, provided that they remain accountable for verifiable outputs.

This transition largely hinges on the manner in which the system can provide the right balance of freedom and responsibility, autonomy and support, as well as trust and accountability. It is a painful but essential transition. India cannot achieve its lofty ambitions of emerging as a global knowledge location without undergoing it.

For real change, we need strong political will, sincere cooperation between central and state governments, and some real institutional reform. If the system is genuine in its implementation, an HECI framework could make it become empowering, not controlling.

Done correctly, India will not only fix its higher education system; it will lay the groundwork for a globally competitive, knowledge-producing society for decades into the future.

Dr Chetan Singai is professor and dean of the School of Law, Governance, and Public Policy at Chanakya University, Bengaluru, India. The views expressed are his own.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.