NEP 2020 and the Draft Higher Education Commission of India Bill: Promise or Policy Puzzle?

Introduction: Between Vision and Viability

In July 2020, the Government of India unveiled the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, a bold and comprehensive framework that sought to reimagine the educational ecosystem of the country from its foundations. Coming over three decades after the last major policy change in 1986, NEP 2020 promised sweeping reforms across school and higher education, embedding ideals of flexibility, multi-disciplinarity, de-bureaucratization, and a “light but tight” regulatory structure. It was an ambitious, if not audacious, effort to respond to a rapidly globalizing knowledge economy and to align Indian education with the goals of equity, excellence, and employability. Central to this policy vision was a promise to overhaul the regulatory framework of higher education through the establishment of a single apex body: the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI), which would replace the decades-old University Grants Commission (UGC) and other regulatory councils like AICTE and NCTE.

NEP 2020 outlined a future where students could move fluidly between disciplines, academic credits would be portable across institutions, and quality assurance would be decoupled from funding—a model that mirrored global best practices. The HECI was projected as a transformative body, responsible for ensuring standards, funding institutions, accrediting them, and establishing a broad national curriculum framework through its various verticals. These proposals were not merely structural but ideological: they promised to shift the Indian higher education system from one of excessive control and fragmentation to one that emphasized autonomy, innovation, and accountability.

But four years later, much of this promise remains unrealized. The draft HECI Bill, first introduced in 2018 and updated post-NEP, has yet to be passed by Parliament. In the interim, several foundational contradictions have surfaced—between the centre and states, public and private interests, regulatory ambition and institutional capacity. While the NEP as a document continues to generate excitement, its legislative and operational lag has raised pressing questions: Are we witnessing the beginning of a genuine transformation, or are we stuck with yet another layer of unfulfilled reforms? This blog seeks to unpack this question by critically examining the NEP’s higher education agenda, the HECI Bill, and the deeper tensions that underlie their implementation.

A Bold Restructuring Plan: NEP's Higher Education Vision

The NEP 2020 sets out to do nothing less than reimagine higher education in India. Its recommendations include making undergraduate education more holistic, flexible, and interdisciplinary, allowing for multiple exit and entry options, and establishing a system of academic credit banks to facilitate mobility. It proposes the phasing out of the rigid separation between curricular and extracurricular streams, the encouragement of regional and classical languages, and the integration of Indian knowledge systems into mainstream curricula. The policy also aims to internationalize higher education by inviting top 100 global universities to set up campuses in India, thereby signalling confidence in domestic academic reforms and aspirations for global parity.

At the regulatory level, the most notable proposal was the creation of the Higher Education Commission of India, envisioned as a single, overarching body that would replace existing regulators like the UGC, AICTE, and NCTE. HECI would consist of four independent verticals: the National Higher Education Regulatory Council (NHERC) for regulation, the National Accreditation Council (NAC) for accreditation, the Higher Education Grants Council (HEGC) for funding, and the General Education Council (GEC) for academic standards. This structural shift promised to bring coherence and transparency to what has long been a fragmented and overlapping regulatory landscape.

In theory, these proposals offer solutions to India’s chronic higher education challenges—quality variation, lack of research funding, politicized regulation, and limited institutional autonomy. The aim was to create a landscape in which universities could focus on teaching and research rather than compliance, while students could pursue more meaningful academic journeys tailored to their interests and life situations.

The Missing Law: Why the HECI Bill Matters

Despite its centrality to the NEP vision, the Higher Education Commission of India Bill has remained in limbo for nearly six years. The original draft was circulated in 2018 but received significant pushback from stakeholders due to concerns over centralization and lack of clarity. A revised draft intended to align with NEP 2020 has not been introduced in Parliament, despite repeated assurances. In 2023, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education criticized the government’s “lack of urgency” in introducing the HECI Bill and called for greater transparency in the process.

The delay is not merely procedural—it reveals the complex political economy of education reform. Replacing long-standing institutions like the UGC and AICTE is no small task. These bodies have deep institutional legacies, staff, and statutory powers. More importantly, the proposed HECI would have sweeping powers with no mention of state representation in its governing structure, raising red flags about federalism. The draft Bill’s centralization of authority and the absence of mechanisms for state consultation in regulatory decisions have led several states to oppose the move. Education, after all, is a concurrent subject under the Indian Constitution, and the top-down approach of the HECI appears to dilute the cooperative federalism model necessary for meaningful reform.

This legislative vacuum has also created confusion at the implementation level. Institutions are being nudged toward multidisciplinary models and academic banks of credit, yet the lack of a coherent regulatory framework has made coordination difficult. Accreditation reforms remain patchy, funding mechanisms like the Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) are still evolving, and the push for foreign universities has been met with administrative ambiguity. Without the statutory backing of HECI, the NEP’s regulatory vision is fragmented, leaving institutions to operate in a grey zone between old rules and new aspirations.

Centralisation, Federalism, and the Commercialisation Debate

One of the most contentious aspects of the NEP’s implementation journey has been its perceived shift toward centralisation. While the NEP emphasizes quality and standardization, many state governments have voiced concerns about excessive central control. Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal have all pushed back against various elements of the policy, including the three-language formula and curricular overhauls. The fear is not unfounded—under the proposed HECI model, the central government appoints almost all members, with no formal mechanism for state involvement in decision-making. This is particularly problematic because state universities account for over 90 percent of enrollment in higher education.

The push toward private participation is another dimension of concern. Though the NEP celebrates public education, its language on “philanthropic private participation” and funding through mechanisms like HEFA has led critics to argue that it facilitates the commercialisation of higher education. Public institutions are being encouraged to become self-financing, raising fears that tuition fees will increase and access will shrink for students from economically weaker sections. The equity-enhancing provisions in the NEP—such as Special Education Zones, a Gender Inclusion Fund, and socio-economic scholarship schemes—are commendable in intent but remain underfunded and under-enforced.

The Parliamentary Committee has rightly pointed out that the closure of underperforming institutions should not be the primary route to quality enhancement, especially when many such institutions serve marginalized communities. A centralised regulator with sweeping punitive powers could inadvertently create a regulatory environment where only elite, urban, and private institutions thrive, leaving rural and regional colleges behind.

Digital Promise and the Risk of Exclusion

One of the NEP’s most forward-looking aspects is its emphasis on digital transformation. With initiatives like SWAYAM, the National Digital Library, academic depositories, and the establishment of a National Educational Technology Forum (NETF), the policy envisions a future where digital tools complement and enhance learning across levels. The pandemic offered a taste of this shift, pushing universities and colleges to adopt online teaching, assessment, and credentialing methods almost overnight.

But here again, the gap between vision and reality is stark. India continues to struggle with a deep digital divide—only 20 percent of students in rural areas have access to a computer with internet. The majority rely on mobile devices, often shared among family members. Connectivity remains poor in tribal and remote areas, and digital literacy is low among both students and educators. Without robust investments in digital infrastructure and training, the push for online and blended learning risks creating a two-tiered system—one for the tech-savvy elite and another for those left behind.

Digital reform must go beyond platforms and content. It must address the infrastructural, financial, and pedagogical barriers that impede equitable access. Policies on data privacy, student surveillance, algorithmic bias in assessments, and the use of AI in education also require urgent attention. The NEP’s enthusiasm for digital learning is well-placed, but its implementation needs a grounded, inclusive approach that places the most vulnerable students at the centre of its design.

Conclusion: From Policy to Practice

NEP 2020 is, without doubt, a landmark policy document. Its emphasis on holistic learning, critical thinking, multilingualism, research, and global integration reflects a sophisticated understanding of where Indian education must go. But policies, no matter how visionary, cannot transform systems unless backed by legislative clarity, institutional capacity, and political will. The continued delay of the HECI Bill reflects a lack of urgency in translating policy intent into actionable frameworks. Meanwhile, the policy’s centralising tendencies, unclear funding mechanisms, and overreliance on digital platforms threaten to erode its equity agenda.

For NEP 2020 to succeed, the government must prioritise dialogue—with states, teachers, students, and institutions—to create a truly cooperative model of governance. Regulatory reforms must be grounded in constitutional principles of federalism and social justice. Investments in public education must match the scale of reform being imagined. And above all, the policy must be implemented not just in elite institutions, but across the diversity of India’s educational spectrum. The real test of NEP 2020 will be whether it can create a system that empowers every learner—not just the privileged few—with knowledge, dignity, and opportunity.