Why in news?

Five years after NEP 2020 proposed it, the government is set to table the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) Bill 2025 in the upcoming Winter Session.

The Bill aims to merge the regulatory roles of the UGC, AICTE, and NCTE into one unified authority, marking the second attempt to establish a single higher education regulator in India.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• HECI: India’s Proposed Single Regulator for Higher Education
• The 2018 HECI Bill: Key Provisions and Why It Stalled
• Opposition to HECI: Concerns Over Centralisation and Autonomy

HECI: India’s Proposed Single Regulator for Higher Education

• The Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) Bill draws directly from NEP 2020, which recommended replacing the fragmented regulatory structure with a single overarching authority.
• Currently, India’s higher education landscape is regulated by multiple statutory bodies:
  • the University Grants Commission (UGC) oversees higher education,
  • the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) regulates technical and professional education, and
  • the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) governs teacher education.
• Four Verticals Under HECI
  • NEP 2020 outlines four specialised bodies within HECI:
    • National Higher Education Regulatory Council (NHERC): Regulates all higher education except medical and legal fields.
    • National Accreditation Council (NAC): Serves as the accrediting authority.
    • General Education Council (GEC): Frames academic learning outcomes and standards.
    • Higher Education Grants Council (HEGC): Handles funding and grants (though officials indicate funding may still rest with the government).
  • HECI itself will function as a compact body of eminent experts overseeing the four verticals.
• Reducing Red Tape and Conflict of Interest
  • NEP 2020 criticised the existing system for being “mechanistic and disempowering”, with concentrated powers, regulatory overlap, and conflicts of interest.
  • The new commission aims to streamline governance, ensure accountability, and eliminate bureaucratic hurdles.
• Autonomy and Quality Focus
  • The Bill seeks to empower higher education institutions to operate as “independent self-governing institutions” while ensuring excellence through a transparent accreditation system and enhanced institutional autonomy.

The 2018 HECI Bill: Key Provisions and Why It Stalled

• The government’s first attempt to replace the UGC came through the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) Bill, 2018.
• It proposed a new commission with a chairperson, vice-chairperson, and 12 members appointed by the Centre.
• Since the Bill did not merge AICTE and NCTE, their chairpersons were included as members.
• The 2018 draft limited HECI’s powers to setting academic standards and granting autonomy while leaving funding authority with the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
• It also planned an advisory council headed by the HRD Minister and comprising state higher education council heads.
• However, the Bill drew criticism for potentially centralising authority and creating excessive overregulation.
• Following strong pushback during public consultations, it was shelved and revisited for alignment with the NEP 2020 framework.

Opposition to HECI: Concerns Over Centralisation and Autonomy

• Fears of Excessive Centralisation
  • Critics argue that the HECI framework concentrates too much authority with the Union government.
  • The 2018 Bill shifted UGC’s financial powers to the MHRD, raising concerns that universities could lose autonomy and become dependent on central directives.
• Lack of Diverse Representation
  • Opposition leaders objected to the commission’s composition.
  • They noted the absence of representation from disadvantaged groups — women, Dalits, Adivasis, OBCs, minorities, and persons with disabilities — while industry stakeholders were prominently included.
• Apprehensions From States
  • The then CM of Tamil Nadu warned that centralised funding could lead to biased resource allocation.
  • He feared that replacing UGC grants with ministry-controlled funding might shift to a 60:40 Centre-state share, reducing states’ financial autonomy.
• Parliamentary Panel’s Warning
  • A parliamentary standing committee flagged “excess centralisation” concerns.
  • The panel noted that while multiple regulators create inconsistency, the proposed HECI model risks trapping state universities between national and state rules, with insufficient state representation in decision-making.
• Overall Concern
  • Across political and academic circles, the prevailing worry is that HECI could weaken federalism, dilute institutional autonomy, and marginalise key stakeholders in higher education governance.