New Delhi: The Congress on Thursday expressed serious concerns over the new Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) Bill, alleging that the proposed law was violative of the federal structure of the Constitution.
In a statement, Congress general secretary, communications, Jairam Ramesh listed seven key issues the Congress has with the Bill in its present form, which include failure to consult state governments while framing it, constitutional overreach, absence of funding council, bureaucratisation of higher education and dilution of UGC’s Consultative requirements.
The Congress has alleged that the architecture of higher education is sought to be “restructured” through the Bill, which is currently under consideration of the Joint Committee of Parliament.
“The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education’s annual Demand for Grants report on the Department of Higher Education presented yesterday revealed a shockingly high number of vacancies in key regulatory agencies like the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).
“This concerning news comes at a time when there is already a move to restructure the architecture of higher education regulation through the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) Bill, 2025,” he said.
Ramesh claimed that the ministry has not consulted state governments in the drafting of this bill, despite the fact that education is listed in the Concurrent List of the Constitution and this Bill directly impacts state universities.
He said that the proposed Bill, as stated in its Statement of Objects and Reasons, is introduced for passing in Parliament under Entry 66 of Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which gives specific legislative powers to Parliament that is only for “Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.”
“The VBSA Bill gives the VBSA (Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan or the commission) powers far beyond this scope, and specifically encroaches on state government powers.
“Entry 44 of List I-Union List expressly prohibits the Parliament for law-making on matters of incorporation, regulation and winding up of universities, and Entry 32 of List II-State List expressly gives this law-making power to State Legislatures. The Bill is therefore violative of the federal structure of the Constitution,” the Congress leader said.
He said the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) expressly envisioned a Higher Education Council of India with four verticals.
“The current bill envisions only three Councils, with the exception of a council for grant-giving. Effectively, grant-giving powers will be returned from autonomous bodies (the UGC and AICTE) governed by academics to the ministry that is run by politicians. This centralisation of power is a departure from current practice and a violation of the NEP,” he claimed.
Currently, he said, the administration of the UGC, AICTE, and NCTE is all run by academics appointed to the position. The new Bill envisages that the executive running of the commission and the three councils be done by the member secretaries (i.e., bureaucrats) appointed to them, he said.
“The administration of education should be done by academics (as is currently the practice) rather than by bureaucrats,” the Congress leader said.
Ramesh said the VBSA includes the INIs– Institutes of National Importance (IITs, IIMs, NITs, IIITs, and IISERs) — which have historically had autonomy. Under the IIT Act 1961, IITs are empowered to create their own academic programs and need no further approvals for the grant of the same, he noted.
“However, clause 49 of the draft Bill grants the Bill an overriding effect over all other laws currently in force. Although it says that the autonomy of INIs cannot be compromised, it is not clear on the details.
“Therefore, with this bill, IITs and other INIs may also be expected to fall under the Commission’s regulatory powers. This has never been the case before and may compromise their academic and institutional autonomy,” he said.
The former union minister also pointed out that under the Existing UGC Act, there is mandate for UGC to perform all its functions of determination and maintenance of standards in universities, specify regulations, and even to conduct inspection in consultation with the universities.
The proposed Bill, in contrast, gives sole discretionary powers to the councils to determine standards, conduct inspection, and exercise other unlimited and unspecified powers and functions, he noted. “The regulator is now statutorily siloed off from the institutions.”
Under the existing AICTE Act, he said, universities are not required to obtain approval of AICTE for starting any department or programme.
“However, the proposed Bill requires universities to obtain approval of newly established council for starting campuses. It must be remembered that the National Education Policy 2020 calls for greater autonomy to institutes of higher education — not tighter control,” he said.
