Speaking to CNBC-TV18, Subrahmanyam said the presence of multiple regulators over the years had resulted in a fragmented academic framework, hurting both quality and investor interest.
“One of the reasons why we have a very disjointed academic structure in higher education has been the presence of multiple regulators,” he said, adding that this had “depressed the interest of the private sector and, in many cases, has done little to improve academic standards”.
The bill, introduced in Parliament by Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, seeks to overhaul the regulatory architecture by setting up a single overarching higher education commission supported by three councils. The proposed body will handle outcome-based accreditation, academic standards and graded autonomy for institutions. The legislation has been referred to a joint parliamentary committee for further scrutiny amid political opposition.
Subrahmanyam pointed out that the idea of a unified regulator is not new and has been debated for years, including during the framing of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. “In the NEP 2020 this figured as a prominent recommendation — that we need to have a single regulator. It has been on the table for a long time,” he said.
On concerns raised by opposition parties over the bill allowing the Ministry of Education to retain control over grant disbursals, Subrahmanyam said the criticism was misplaced. He argued that grants are already routed through the ministry under existing schemes and that accountability to Parliament makes this arrangement necessary. “I think it is absolutely essential that the grant-making power remains with the government. On that, there is no doubt,” he said, citing programmes such as PM-USHA under which funds are released to institutions and state governments.
However, Subrahmanyam acknowledged that the proposed regulator must function through consultation rather than control, particularly given the dominant role of states in higher education. He said referring the bill to a Parliamentary Committee was the right move. “We need to have a regulator who builds consensus, not one that tries to control,” he told CNBC-TV18, noting that state governments manage nearly 90% of higher education institutions and often spend more than the Centre on the sector.
The Bill also proposes stringent penalties for violations, including fines of up to ₹2 crore for setting up a university without approval and heavy financial penalties or suspension for repeat offenders. While the provisions have raised concerns about over-regulation, Subrahmanyam said strong rules were necessary but should be applied with care.
On the participation of foreign universities, he said interest in India has increased but stressed that entry should be selective. “We do not want just any university to come and set up a campus,” he said, adding that only top-ranked global institutions should be encouraged as they would help signal international benchmarks to Indian universities.
Also Read | Future Female Forward | India must fix education, hiring gaps to boost women leadership, say industry heads
At the same time, Subrahmanyam said the regulator should actively support Indian universities seeking to establish campuses overseas. He described this as a form of educational exports that could strengthen India’s global influence, calling it important for expanding the country’s soft power.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishtan Bill has triggered sharp political debate, with critics warning of excessive centralisation and threats to institutional autonomy. As the parliamentary committee begins its review, the government faces the task of balancing regulatory consolidation with federal concerns and academic freedom.
Watch accompanying video for entire conversation.
