Federalism in Indian Higher Education

Higher education in India has become a key arena reflecting evolving Centre-State dynamics within Indian federalism, involving disputes over regulatory authority, curriculum, language policy, funding, and digital governance. Although education is under the Concurrent List, recent reforms like the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and regulatory changes have increased the Union government’s influence, often causing tensions with States asserting regional identities. States have shown strategic adaptation by selectively implementing reforms, especially in areas like internationalisation and foreign university campuses, highlighting a negotiated federalism rather than outright conflict. These developments underscore that higher education governance now plays a crucial role in shaping the balance of power and political negotiations within India’s federal structure.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

The governance of higher education in India is distributed across different layers of the federal structure, drawing authority from specific constitutional provisions.

The Shift to the Concurrent List

Initially, education was primarily a State subject under Entry 11 of List II (State List). The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 shifted education to Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List). This gives both the Parliament and State Legislatures the power to enact legislation on education, with central laws prevailing in case of conflict.

Overlocking Entries and Jurisdictional Division

The legislative powers of the States on education remain subject to specific items in List I (Union List). Entry 66 of the Union List grants the Central Government exclusive power over the “coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.” This overlapping structure often leads to legal and administrative disputes regarding the limits of Central regulatory authority versus State autonomy.

Drivers of Centralization and State Friction

Recent policy interventions and structural overhauls have accelerated central influence in higher education governance, generating pushback from regional administrations.

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 Architecture

While the NEP 2020 serves as a guiding policy framework rather than a statutory mandate, its implementation strategies favor uniform national standards. Key friction points include:

• The Higher Education Commission of India (HECI): This proposed single overarching regulator aims to replace the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), which states argue centralized regulatory oversight.
• National Research Foundation (NRF): A central body designed to control and distribute research funding nationwide, potentially shifting capital away from state-run universities.

Regulatory and Administrative Control Over State Universities

Tensions have intensified over the appointment and authority of Vice-Chancellors (VCs) in State Universities. Historically, Governors act as Chancellors of state universities. Several state governments (including West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala) passed state legislations to curtail the Governor’s unilateral powers in VC selections, leading to prolonged legislative and legal standoffs.

Language Policy and Centralized Testing Mechanisms

The introduction of the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) for undergraduate admissions encountered systematic resistance. States like Tamil Nadu argue that centralized, standardized testing disadvantages rural students who study under state boards, altering the level playing field in favor of urban students utilizing central boards. Similarly, pushback occurs over mandates pushing Hindi or specific scheduled languages within technical curriculum design.

Institutional Financing and Digital Governance

The financial relationship between the Centre and States heavily influences how higher education policies are carried out.

Negotiated Federalism and Strategic Adaptation

The relationship between the Centre and States in higher education is not purely conflictual; it often involves tactical alignment and selective adoption.

Strategic Internationalization

State governments frequently look past ideological disagreements when economic opportunities arise. The UGC regulations allowing foreign higher educational institutions to set up campuses in India have seen proactive adaptation. States like Gujarat (via GIFT City), Telangana, and Karnataka actively court international universities, leveraging central deregulation to boost regional investment and institutional status.

Selective Policy Implementation

States apply an asymmetric implementation strategy toward central schemes. While some states reject the uniform implementation of the four-year undergraduate program (FYUP), they simultaneously absorb central funds through the Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA)—now evolved as Pradhan Mantri Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (PM-USHA)—to upgrade local institutional infrastructure.

IASPOINT Booster Facts for UPSC

• The Sarkaria Commission on Education: The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations (1988) explicitly recommended that while education should remain on the Concurrent List, the Centre must consult State Governments before executing major policy shifts or drafting central legislations.
• Supreme Court Ruling on Entry 66: In the landmark Modern Dental College (2016) case, the Supreme Court clarified that the Centre’s power under Entry 66 of List I is limited to fixing minimum standards, and it cannot completely eliminate the State’s power under Entry 25 of List III to regulate admissions and fee structures in local institutions.
• PM-USHA Funding Criteria: The Pradhan Mantri Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan mandates that states must formally agree to implement the core tenets of NEP 2020 to remain fully eligible for specific tranches of central infrastructure grants.
• First State to Reject NEP: Karnataka became the first state to officially announce the formal withdrawal of the implementation of NEP 2020, opting instead to formulate a distinct State Education Policy (SEP) tailored to regional socio-economic conditions.
• The Academic Bank of Credits (ABC): Established under the University Grants Commission (Establishment and Operation of Academic Bank of Credits in Higher Education) Regulations, the ABC functions as a digital storehouse containing information on the academic credits earned by individual students, facilitating multi-entry and multi-exit pathways across states.