Collaborative Educational Governance: Central and State Bodies Supporting MHRD

India’s education system doesn’t run on a single command. It operates through a well-defined network of central and state bodies, each with a specific mandate, all working in coordination with the Ministry of Education – formerly known as the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). Understanding how this network functions helps us appreciate why Indian education, despite its scale and diversity, maintains a degree of coherence and standardization across 28 states and 8 union territories.

The MHRD and its transformation into the Ministry of Education 🔗

The Ministry of Human Resource Development was established on September 26, 1985, when the Rajiv Gandhi government combined the Department of Education and the Department of Culture into a single ministry. It held this name for over three decades, overseeing everything from primary schooling to doctoral research. With the arrival of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the ministry was renamed back to the Ministry of Education (MoE), signalling a return to its core identity.

The ministry operates through two departments: the Department of School Education and Literacy, which handles primary, secondary, and adult education, and the Department of Higher Education, which oversees universities, technical institutions, research, and scholarships. While the ministry sets national policy direction, it relies extensively on a range of specialized bodies to carry out those policies on the ground.

Central bodies supporting educational governance 🔗

At the central level, several statutory and autonomous organizations extend the ministry’s reach across different segments of education. Each body has a distinct role – from funding universities to developing school textbooks – and together they form a comprehensive governance architecture.

University Grants Commission (UGC) 🔗

The University Grants Commission is one of the most significant regulatory bodies in India’s higher education landscape. Established by an Act of Parliament in 1956, the UGC is a statutory body under the Department of Higher Education tasked with coordinating, determining, and maintaining standards of teaching, examination, and research across universities. Its headquarters are in New Delhi, with six regional centres located in Pune, Bhopal, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Guwahati, and Bengaluru.

The UGC performs a dual role: it both disburses funds to universities and colleges and enforces academic standards. It provides grants for infrastructure development, faculty development, and research initiatives. Beyond funding, it advises both central and state governments on measures to improve higher education, frames minimum standards regulations, and recognizes universities – including granting “deemed university” status on the recommendation of the Department of Higher Education. The UGC also conducts the National Eligibility Test (NET) to determine eligibility for teaching positions, making NET qualification mandatory for teaching at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

A notable institutional arm of the UGC is the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), which it established in 1994 in response to the National Policy on Education (1986). NAAC’s mandate is to assess and accredit higher education institutions based on seven criteria including curriculum, teaching-learning, research, infrastructure, and governance. As of 2024, NAAC has accredited over 450 universities and more than 8,500 colleges across India.

All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) 🔗

For technical and management education, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is the primary regulatory authority. Established in November 1945 first as an advisory body, AICTE was later given statutory status by an Act of Parliament in 1987. It operates under the Department of Higher Education and is responsible for planning, development, and regulation of technical education in India – covering engineering, management, pharmacy, architecture, hotel management, and information technology.

AICTE’s key functions include approving and accrediting technical institutions, developing industry-relevant curricula, and promoting research and innovation. It is assisted by ten statutory Boards of Studies covering areas such as undergraduate engineering, postgraduate research, management studies, pharmaceutical education, and more. The National Board of Accreditation (NBA), established by AICTE in 1994 and now operating as an independent body, specifically accredits individual technical programmes – such as B.Tech and MBA courses – rather than institutions as a whole. NBA is a full member of the Washington Accord, an international agreement that recognizes the equivalence of engineering degrees, lending global credibility to Indian technical graduates.

National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) 🔗

At the school education level, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) plays a foundational role. Established in 1961 as an autonomous organization, NCERT was set up to assist and advise both central and state governments on policies for the qualitative improvement of school education. Its motto, drawn from the Isha Upanishad, translates as “life eternal through learning.”

NCERT’s core responsibilities span curriculum design, textbook preparation, teacher training, and educational research. It develops model curricula and textbooks for classes I to XII that are prescribed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). Textbooks published by NCERT are widely regarded as authoritative references and around 19 school boards from 14 states have adopted or adapted NCERT books in some form. NCERT also operates ePathshala, a joint digital initiative with the Ministry of Education that provides free access to textbooks, audio, and video materials through mobile phones and desktops.

A critical and often overlooked aspect of NCERT’s governance structure is its General Body – the policy-making arm – where the Union Minister for Education serves as President, and all state and union territory ministers of education are members. This structure makes NCERT a genuine bridge between central and state educational priorities.

State-level bodies and their role in educational governance 🔗

While central bodies set national benchmarks, state-level bodies carry the responsibility of adapting and implementing policies within their specific socio-linguistic and geographic contexts. Each state has a State Board of Education that oversees secondary school curricula, examinations, and affiliated schools. These boards design syllabi from Grades 1 to 12 and conduct examinations in regional languages, making education more accessible to students in rural and semi-urban areas.

Mirroring NCERT at the state level are the State Councils of Educational Research and Training (SCERTs). SCERTs are curriculum bodies that govern state-specific curricula, working closely with NCERT’s frameworks while accommodating local cultural and linguistic needs. They also handle in-service teacher training at the state level and support District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) in building teacher capacity at the ground level.

State universities and technical institutions further extend this network, operating under the dual regulatory oversight of state governments and central bodies like the UGC and AICTE. This layered model ensures that national standards and state-specific needs are both addressed.

How these bodies collaborate in practice 🔗

The strength of India’s educational governance lies not in any single institution but in how these bodies interact. The ministry formulates broad policy – including landmark frameworks like NEP 2020 – while the UGC, AICTE, and NCERT handle the operational translation of those policies into academic standards, course structures, and institutional practices.

For instance, the Department of Higher Education is empowered to grant deemed university status on the advice of the UGC, reflecting a consultative model where statutory bodies feed directly into ministerial decision-making. Similarly, NCERT’s curriculum revisions align with the ministry’s national policy goals, and the resulting textbooks become the foundation for CBSE-affiliated schools across the country. AICTE’s accreditation standards, meanwhile, signal to the industry which institutions produce work-ready graduates.

The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), launched in 2015 under the Ministry of Education, is another example of coordinated governance – it ranks higher education institutions across multiple categories, drawing on data supplied by institutions regulated by both UGC and AICTE. NEP 2020 has further proposed merging NAAC and NBA into a single National Accreditation Council (NAC), reflecting a push toward streamlining India’s accreditation architecture as part of broader regulatory reform.

Challenges in the governance network 🔗

Despite the institutional depth of India’s educational governance, the system faces real challenges. Overlapping jurisdictions between the UGC and AICTE – particularly over programmes like MBA and MCA offered by universities – have historically led to regulatory disputes and delays. There are also concerns about the uneven reach of accreditation: while NAAC has accredited thousands of institutions, a significant proportion of colleges across India remain unaccredited, making quality assurance inconsistent at the ground level.

The UGC has also faced persistent criticism over its inability to eliminate fake universities. Despite having a mandate to identify and warn the public about unauthorized institutions, the UGC lacks direct authority to shut down such entities and must rely on state governments for enforcement. Addressing these structural gaps – through proposals like HECI (Higher Education Commission of India) – remains an active conversation in Indian education policy.

What do you think? Given that central bodies like the UGC and AICTE set national standards while state boards have the flexibility to adapt curricula locally, do you think this division of responsibility strengthens or complicates educational governance in India? And with the proposed merger of NAAC and NBA under a single accreditation framework, do you believe consolidation will improve the quality and reach of accreditation, or risk reducing the specificity that distinct bodies currently provide?

References

1. https://www.education.gov.in/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Education_(India)
3. https://www.ugc.gov.in/
4. https://www.education.gov.in/en/university-grants-commission
5. https://www.education.gov.in/en/university-and-higher-education-1
6. https://www.gktoday.in/ministry-of-human-resource-and-development/
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Board_of_Accreditation
8. https://ncert.nic.in/about-us.php?ln=en
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_Educational_Research_and_Training
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_India
11. https://grokipedia.com/page/University_Grants_Commission_(India)