VBSA Bill: Exemption to IITs ‘not desirable’; scrap deemed-university tag, plan separate funding, says panel

VBSA Bill: The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) constituted to review the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhisthan Bill 2025, largely backs the government on key provisions of the VBSA Bill, including keeping funding out of the ambit of the new higher education commission and keeping Institutes of National Importance (INI) and Institutions of Eminence (IoE) within it. The committee says in its report that exempting the INIs – including Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Information Technology and others – is “neither desirable nor necessary”.

The JPC categorically states that IITs should be within the ambit of the commission “while ensuring that their autonomy and independence remain fully safeguarded”. With many states and state universities seeing the draft bill as the centre seizing greater control over state-governed and funded institutions, the concept of “co-operative federalism” appears repeatedly within the JPC report but ultimately, the committee has endorsed the education ministry’s stand that the bill focuses only on “regulating the national standards” and “governance remains intact with the state governments”. It even recommends keeping – albeit with more clarification – a clause that allows the centre to supersede the commission and its councils.

That said, the committee has noted concerns over the centralisation of power , and recommended greater representation of states in all councils and that it be "institutionalised through appropriate mechanisms”. It also “advise[s]” the ministry of education, which has drafted the VBSA Bill, “to highlight in explanatory notes that the bill’s scope is confined to standards and accreditation” with regard to state institutions.

The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) Bill, 2025, which was introduced in the Lok Sabha in December last year, proposes an overhaul of India's higher-education sector by dissolving the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to create a single regulatory commission. After furore in parliament, it was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee, whose draft report has been circulated among members. Careers360 has seen a copy of the report.

The new bill is a revision of the previous draft known as the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) Bill . The draft report of the committee will be discussed on July 20, the first day of the monsoon session of parliament 2026. It was earlier scheduled for adoption on Friday .

Also read ‘At Regulatory Crossroads’: Psychology courses caught in UGC, NCAHP, RCI tangle, causing confusion

Here’s a rundown of the Joint Parliament Committee on VBSA Bill’s key recommendations.

Deemed universities phase-out

Under the new regime, the “deemed-to-university” category of institutions is likely to be phased out altogether. The JPC recommends its abolition and the existing lot’s transition to full-fledged universities with graded autonomy. Deemed universities are standalone institutions with degree-granting power but no law – central or state – underpinning them.

UGC rule for chairman

The JPC has recommended that the VBSA Bill ’s provision on the appointment of the chairperson and other members be amended to “debar serving government officers and bureaucrats”.

“To further ensure institutional autonomy, the committee feels that the government may consider inserting a new sub-clause or provision modelled after legacy statutory safeguards such as Section 5(2) of the UGC Act, 1956. This addition is intended to debar serving government officers and bureaucrats from being appointed as the chairperson of the commission. This provision may also help alleviate concerns among certain stakeholders about the centralisation of power,” it said.

The UGC Act had such a clause but the VBSA Bill, in its current form, doesn’t. As per the Bill’s provision, the chairman of the new body will hold an ‘honorary’ position.

VBSA Bill: JPC endorses separate funding plan

The separation of funding from other parts of regulation of higher education is a seriously contentious issue with several state governments, including those led by the BJP’s allies, as well as members from the BJP who are part of the JPC, have raised.

While both UGC and AICTE have funding powers, the commission that will replace them won’t . The VBSA Bill has no provision for funding. Going by the education ministry’s responses to concerns raised – as recorded in the JPC report as well as the document compiling all the comments and responses – that power will rest with the department of higher education, under the ministry of education. As many academics had noted when this was first proposed, this effectively places funding decisions outside the purview of experts and academics in an autonomous body and into the hands of the bureaucrats and politicians who run the department.

The Government of Telangana had complained: “The VBSA regime creates a paradox for state universities: full central regulation without any statutorily guaranteed central funding. The UGC’s general development grants — the primary statutory channel of central support to state universities for decades — are abolished with the UGC Act’s repeal and not replaced. state universities bear full compliance costs (portal disclosure, accreditation, adjudicatory proceedings) while also potentially paying penalties out of state-funded budgets, with all proceeds remitted to the central fund.”

Also read Has DST scrapped INSPIRE-SHE scholarship? No notice, list, or clarity leaves students wondering

But the JPC has accepted the MoE stance that having the regulating authority also funding will create “conflicts of interest” and said, “the committee concurs with the ministry’s clarification that the absence of a separate funding council does not compromise institutional autonomy or transparency in financial disbursal.”

That said, it wants the ministry to include in one of the Bill’s clauses that the ongoing UGC grant commitments shall continue and that “the central government shall notify a successor grant disbursement mechanism at the earliest opportunity, ensuring continuity of funding to central universities, institutions of national importance, and state HEIs under PM-USHA and other schemes, with no disruption to JRF, SRF, and other scholarship programmes.”

VBSA Bill: INIs, IoEs say within ambit

The IITs and Indian Institutes of Management (IIM) have so far been governed only by their own Acts. The UGC regulations had no binding powers over them. Several institutions from this group, including even Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) had made submissions to the JPC seeking exemption from the VBSA Act.

However, the JPC has again sided with the education ministry. Its report states: “Exemption is neither desirable nor necessary, as it would isolate [IITs] from a unified national framework designed to modernize higher education and will create a fragmented regulatory landscape, where IITs operate outside the broader quality assurance and accountability mechanisms applied to other premier institutions…“The VBSA Bill 2025 should retain IITs, IIITs and IoEs within their ambit, while ensuring that their autonomy and independence remain fully safeguarded.”

It has, however, recommended that these institutions be mandatorily consulted whenever policies affecting them are framed.

VBSA Bill 2026: Governance, admin powers with state

With regard to over-centralisation concerns, the JPC has again accepted the education ministry’s explanation, that the Bill is intended only to raise and maintain standards and not impinge upon the autonomy and powers of states and state university acts.

“The committee endorses the explanation of the ministry and advises them to highlight in explanatory notes that the bill’s scope is confined to standards and accreditation, thereby safeguarding state autonomy and ensuring cooperative federalism,” the report noted.

However, elsewhere it has acknowledged the need for state representation in the new commission’s decision-making and recommended that the government formally recognise State Higher Education Councils and provide for a statutory mechanism for consultation with them before framing or implementing major policies.

Also read Maharashtra hostels for SC, ST students run without wardens, overcrowded; some ‘bogus’: CAG report

Increase state representation: Parliament panel

The committee states that in all the three councils to be constituted as part of the commission, the state government nominees to be increased to at least three per council, on zonal rotation – south, north, east and west – with a minimum three-year term, consistent with other non-ex-officio members.

The three councils part of the commission include:

• Viksit Bharat Shiksha Viniyaman Parishad or the regulatory council

• Viksit Bharat Shiksha Gunvatta Parishad or the accreditation council

• Viksit Bharat Shiksha Manak Parishad or the standards council

The bill currently allows state and union territory representatives a rotating term of only 1 year in the council. The accreditation council, meanwhile, had no such representation. The committee noted, “States have no voice in the body that accredits their own universities.”

The JPC report says: “A single-year term reduces state representation to a nominal exercise. While acknowledging the ministry's submission that academics from state higher education institutions serve longer terms on the councils, the committee is of the opinion that the perspective of an individual academic may not be a substitute for the policy viewpoint of a state government. Accordingly, the committee recommends that the central government should consider evolving an appropriate mechanism to facilitate the representation.”

The committee has also recommended that the councils institutionalise structured mechanisms for consultation with universities, state governments, and others before finalising regulations, inspections, or standards.

Open, clear appointments; SC, ST, OBC presence

The committee wants the education ministry to clarify terms such as “eminence in the field”, “proven administrative capability” and other such vague descriptors used in the Bill, during the appointment of the chairperson and members.

It also recommends that provisions be made for inclusion of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, women, and other underrepresented groups in the commission.

The committee wants open selection processes for all appointments. “This process must feature mandatory public advertisements and the prior disclosure of transparent selection criteria,” the report says.

With stakeholders raising concern over the re-employment clause of the commission and council members, the committee has recommended introducing a one-year statutory cooling-off period rather than two years as mentioned in the bill at present.

“This restriction will bar former chairpersons, presidents, and full-time members from taking up highly influential, non-academic executive or advisory positions at higher education institutions (HEIs) that were directly audited, accredited, or penalised during their specific tenure,” it added.

Also read Visva Bharati Recruitment: Complaint to PM alleges DR selection records destroyed; varsity says ‘ridiculous’

VBSA Bill 2026: ‘Meaningful voice’ to states

The report provided specific recommendations based on feedback to the three councils under the commission.

It wants a “meaningful voice” to the states and UTs during major policymaking and benchmark setting.

“The Regulatory Council may, in consultation with the central government, specify a distinct roadmap for institutions located in hilly, rural, remote areas, or disadvantaged areas to attain full accreditation and thereby autonomy and facilitate transforming into multidisciplinary higher education institutions,” it adds.

The committee recommends that the council should adopt a balanced approach toward regulation of foreign and Indian universities.

“This should include safeguards to maintain academic standards, ensure equity, and prevent commercialization, while simultaneously promoting institutional autonomy, innovation, and global best practices. Such calibrated reforms will help to retain talent, attract international students and faculties, and advance India’s vision of becoming a knowledge hub, while ensuring fairness and competitiveness between domestic and foreign institutions,” the report stated.

It has also stressed on the need to provide clarity on policies for institutions offering open and distance-learning programmes, particularly in relation to rankings and accreditation.

VBSA Bill: Periodic reviews by accreditation council

The committee recommends that the accreditation council must ensure that its categorisation process explicitly recognises the heterogeneity of state universities and their role in advancing social justice, equity, and regional priorities.

“The ministry should periodically review the accreditation framework to confirm that it facilitates diversity and innovation, and transparency in accreditation outcomes must be accompanied by consultative mechanisms with state Governments to strengthen cooperative federalism in higher education,” the report added.

Also read Missing labs, teachers, entire colleges – why SRTMU Nanded cracked down on BSc admissions

No ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach on standards

Several institutions raised concerns about having a single yardstick for measuring all academic institutions. The JPC noted that there’s significant diversity in scale and types of institutions in the country and that a single measure will not do justice.

The JPC has recommended standards based on categorisation of institutions and has been assumed by the education ministry that that’s what has been envisioned.

The JPC report notes, “Although the ministry has clarified that the standards council is not an adjudicatory body, the absence of an explicit accountability or review mechanism may give rise to concerns regarding concentration of authority. The committee, therefore, recommends that suitable institutional mechanisms for transparency, consultation, and review of standards-setting processes may be incorporated to ensure confidence among stakeholders.”

The committee recommends that the standards council say explicitly which of its prescriptions are binding minimum academic standards and which are “non-binding innovation frameworks”.

The report says, “Regulations framed under these provisions should adequately recognise the diversity of institutions across different regions, institutional categories and modes of education instead of adopting a rigid one-size-fits-all approach.”

VBSA BIll: ‘Critical vulnerability’ stays

The VBSA Bill empowers the central government to supersede the commission and councils, a provision described as a “critical vulnerability” in the draft law as it permits the executive to dissolve the regulator entirely without adequate safeguards. The JPC does not recommend dropping this clause but merely recommends further definitions and clarity.

“The committee recommend that the clause 47 be comprehensively reviewed and the expressions ‘unable to discharge functions’ and ‘persistently made default’ shall be defined through objective, measurable, and verifiable criteria in the Act or the rules, to eliminate ambiguity, ensure transparency, and prevent arbitrary invocation of the power of supersession,” the report states.

Also read NCAHP push for uniform allied healthcare education slowed by missing state councils, implementation gaps

Apart from regulating teacher training institutions, the NCTE Act also governs teacher qualifications for schools.

During the representation before the JPC the secretary stated that the matter would be examined in consultation with the legislative department and “may require a minor modification in the applicability clause”.

VBSA Bill: Hindi and dual nomenclature

When the bill was introduced in parliament last year, the name was changed to VBSA from HECI. In the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, MPs had accused the union government of “Hindi imposition”

The committee hence recommends that the government continues with the dual nomenclature – keeping “commission” and “councils” along with the Hindi names – in all official references, notifications, and communications.