Why the HECI Bill matters for higher education in India

The Ministry of Education is currently working on a draft bill to establish the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI)—a crucial step towards fulfilling the promise of the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020). First proposed in the draft National Education Policy 2019 (DNEP-2019) and reiterated in the NEP 2020, HECI was envisaged as a “large-scale and far-reaching” remedy for the persistent challenges plaguing India’s higher education system—fragmentation, obsolescence, and over-regulation. 

To bring this vision to life, the system must adopt transparency through data-driven 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 Centre-state cooperation, these principles could transform the sector from a culture of control to one of trust. 

The DNEP 2019 conceived the 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.

Institutions for decades 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 of 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), National Accreditation Council (NAC), Higher Education Grants Council (HEGC), and General Education Council (GEC). This split is more than just bureaucratic reengineering; 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.

One policy, many realities

Education falls under the Concurrent List, meaning both the Centre and the 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 the 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 proactively involve themselves in the preparation of implementation roadmaps, the formulation of State Higher Education Councils/Commissions, and bringing reformulations to university acts in alignment with the NEP vision. 

Central to 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 disclosures. Further, the 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 HECI Bill needs to be enacted as clear and widespread 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 implements but share the ownership of this new regulatory edifice.

Further, there is a necessity in overhauling 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 measurable outputs such as quality teaching, equal opportunities, research productivity, and so on. 

Most importantly, we must strengthen the institutions. The transition from a micromanaging culture to one of 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 needed. 

For real change, we need strong political will, sincere Centre-state cooperation, and some real institutional reform. If the system is genuine in its implementation, an HECI framework could make the system become empowering, not controlling. Done right, India will not only fix its higher education; it will lay the groundwork for a globally competitive, knowledge-producing society for decades into the future.

(The writer is a professor and dean of the School of Law, Governance, and Public Policy, Chanakya University, Bengaluru)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.