Impact of the 42nd Amendment on Higher Education in India

In 1976, a single constitutional amendment quietly but fundamentally changed who gets to decide how India educates its people. Before that year, higher education was entirely a state matter – universities, colleges, and academic policy were shaped by individual state governments. Then came the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, which moved education from the State List to the Concurrent List, opening the door for the central government to co-legislate on educational matters alongside states. That shift, made during the Emergency period under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, continues to define – and divide – Indian higher education policy to this day.

Education as a concurrent subject: what changed in 1976 🔗

To understand the significance of the 42nd Amendment, you need to know how India’s legislative lists work. Under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, subjects are divided into three lists: the Union List (exclusive to Parliament), the State List (exclusive to state legislatures), and the Concurrent List (where both can legislate). When there is a conflict between central and state laws on a concurrent subject, central law prevails.

Originally, when the Constitution came into force, education was placed firmly on the State List. This meant state governments alone had the authority to regulate schools, colleges, and universities within their jurisdictions. This arrangement continued for nearly three decades after independence, with each state shaping its own educational character – a sensible design for a country of such linguistic, cultural, and regional diversity.

The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, often called the “Mini-Constitution” for the sheer breadth of its changes, transferred five subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List. Education was one of them. The Swaran Singh Committee, constituted during the national Emergency, had recommended this move to enable all-India policies on education and ensure greater uniformity in educational standards across states. No detailed constitutional rationale was formally recorded for this transfer – a fact critics have pointed to ever since.

The practical consequence was significant: by moving education to the Concurrent List, the amendment allowed both the Union Government and the State Governments to make laws on educational matters. This enabled the central government to play a more active role in shaping national education policy, setting standards, and coordinating efforts across states – while states technically retained the power to legislate as well.

Implications for higher education: greater central oversight 🔗

The move to the Concurrent List had immediate and lasting effects on higher education governance. With Parliament now empowered to legislate on education, the central government could set standards, establish regulatory bodies, and direct funding – tools it used actively in the decades that followed.

Central regulation through statutory bodies 🔗

Post-1976, the central government’s role in higher education became more direct and structured. The University Grants Commission (UGC) functions as the primary governing body at the tertiary level, enforcing standards and coordinating between the centre and the states up to postgraduate and doctoral levels. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) performs a parallel function for technical institutions. Both draw their authority from central legislation – authority that would have had far less constitutional standing had education remained a state subject.

The central government also gained the power to establish institutions of national importance – IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, and others – and to frame policies like the National Education Policy (NEP) that apply across the country. Significant national-level education initiatives like the National Education Policy and Skill India have been possible precisely because education is on the Concurrent List.

The funding tension 🔗

One of the most contentious aspects of the post-amendment governance structure is the mismatch between who funds education and who controls it. According to the Ministry of Education’s 2022 report, states account for the overwhelming majority of education expenditure, while the Centre contributes a much smaller share – yet central policy and regulation set the framework that states must follow. This creates a structural tension: states bear the bulk of the financial burden but operate within a policy architecture largely shaped by the Centre.

This tension has only deepened with recent legislative proposals. A 2025 bill introduced in Parliament proposes replacing the UGC, AICTE, and NCTE with a single overarching commission, under which the power to fund higher education institutions would rest directly with the Union Ministry of Education – raising serious concerns among academic communities about the erosion of institutional autonomy and state governments’ role in higher education.

Role of CABE: coordinating centre and states 🔗

Given the shared legislative authority over education, some institutional mechanism was needed to ensure that the Centre and states do not simply work at cross-purposes. That role has been assigned, at least formally, to the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) – India’s oldest and most important advisory body on education.

CABE was first established in 1920, dissolved in 1923 due to financial constraints, revived in 1935, and has continued since. Its original idea was proposed by the Calcutta University Commission (1917-19), which believed that a central advisory body could help define the general aims of educational policy and assist state governments in developing educational initiatives. After independence, CABE was reconstituted in 1952, marking the beginning of its modern role as a bridge between the Union Government and states, advising on policies to promote universal education and national development.

CABE is chaired by the Union Minister of Education, with the Minister of State as Vice-Chairman, and includes members from various sectors – education, research, administration, and Parliament. Its core functions, as defined officially, are to:

• Review educational progress across the country periodically.
• Appraise the implementation of education policy by central and state governments.
• Advise on coordination between the Centre, state governments, Union Territory administrations, and non-governmental agencies for educational development.
• Provide suo motu or referred advice on any educational question raised by the central or state governments.

CABE and higher education policy 🔗

CABE has had a notable hand in shaping India’s major educational frameworks. It played an important role in developing the National Policy on Education of 1968 and its revision in 1986, both of which emphasized education as a tool for social equity and national progress. Its last formal meeting in August 2019 focused on discussing the draft National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the All India Survey on Higher Education – demonstrating its continued relevance in framing higher education direction at a national level.

CABE has advised the government on policies such as the Right to Education Act and the National Education Policy, and has provided guidance on implementing programs like the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. For higher education specifically, it serves as a platform where state and central governments can, in theory, deliberate over issues of standards, access, and reform before policies are finalized.

Challenges in implementation: the autonomy vs. centralization debate 🔗

The 42nd Amendment created a framework for shared governance, but in practice, that sharing has been uneven. The most persistent challenge has been the tension between the Centre’s ambition to set uniform national standards and the states’ need to address their own educational realities.

The structural imbalance 🔗

When central and state laws conflict on a concurrent subject, central law wins. This gives the Centre disproportionate influence over education policy – influence that has grown rather than diminished over time. The 42nd Amendment dramatically altered the balance in favour of the Union government, and a quick scan of seven decades of policy evolution shows that education has oscillated from being a state subject to a joint responsibility of states and the centre.

India’s regional diversity makes top-down, uniform approaches particularly fraught. When education was transferred to the Concurrent List, it was done with the intention of creating a “partnership” between state and centre – but in reality, it substantially reduced the autonomy of states to frame region-specific policies that could better serve their populations. The NEET controversy is a clear example: a standardized national entrance exam has repeatedly drawn criticism for disadvantaging students from states whose school curricula differ from the central syllabus.

CABE’s own limitations 🔗

CABE, for all its institutional significance, has not escaped criticism. States governed by opposition parties have frequently criticized CABE as a tool of central overreach. During discussions on NEP 2020, several states alleged that consultation through CABE was insufficient. There have also been significant gaps between meetings – including an 18-month delay before the 2019 meeting – which critics see as evidence of neglect, particularly during periods of educational crisis.

The board’s advisory nature is both its defining feature and its key limitation. CABE can deliberate, recommend, and advise – but it cannot compel. When the Centre chooses to move forward without genuine consensus, CABE’s resolutions remain aspirational rather than binding.

Vice-chancellor appointments and the federalism question 🔗

A more recent flashpoint in the autonomy debate is the question of who appoints Vice-Chancellors of state universities. The 42nd Amendment enabled Parliament to make laws that, in cases of conflict, take precedence over state laws on education – placing central legislation like the UGC Act as superior. This has allowed the UGC to prescribe qualifications and procedures for Vice-Chancellor selection, a domain that state university acts had traditionally governed independently.

Critics argue that this progression – from a constitutional amendment meant to unify policy to a regulatory apparatus that controls academic leadership – reflects a drift far beyond the original intent of the amendment. The original intent of constitutional federalism was not to have a strong centralized federalism but to accommodate diverse needs through statutory decentralization, working on the principle that authority should rest at the lowest feasible level of institutional hierarchy.

The path forward: cooperative federalism in education 🔗

Voices from across the political spectrum – state governments, academics, and policy researchers – have increasingly called for a recalibration. Some advocate returning education to the State List entirely. Others argue for strengthening the cooperative federalism framework: making CABE meetings more regular and binding, ensuring equitable funding flows to states, and genuinely consulting state governments before major policy changes. Better synergy between the Centre and states is widely acknowledged as essential – but achieving it requires both structural reform and political will.

The 42nd Amendment gave India a constitutionally shared education system. Whether that system functions as a genuine partnership or as central dominance by another name depends on how institutions like CABE are empowered, how funding is structured, and how seriously India takes the principle that educational diversity – not just national uniformity – is a strength worth protecting.

What do you think? Nearly five decades after education moved to the Concurrent List, does the current balance between central oversight and state autonomy serve India’s diverse educational needs – or does it need to be rethought? And can an advisory body like CABE ever play a meaningful role in bridging the Centre-state divide, or does it need stronger institutional authority to do so?

References

1. https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india/amendments/constitution-india-forty-second-amendment-act-1976
2. https://prepp.in/question/by-which-constitutional-amendment-the-education-wa-645e2e2a86bec581d556a637
3. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/42nd-amendment-act/
4. https://www.shankariasparliament.com/current-affairs/education-governance
5. https://prepp.in/question/education-was-brought-into-the-concurrent-list-by-642ab35b608c092a4caa79f0
6. https://distancelearning.institute/management/government-role-higher-education/
7. https://testbook.com/question-answer/after-the-42nd-amendment-education-is-placed-unde–691b2bdb2c1ef6d56b553a0e
8. https://theprint.in/india/education/recognition-funding-autonomy-educationists-divided-over-single-higher-education-regulator-bill/2807677/
9. https://factly.forumias.com/central-advisory-board-of-education-cabe/
10. https://educationforallinindia.com/understanding-cabe-a-comprehensive-exploration-of-indias-central-advisory-board-of-education/
11. http://deepaeducation.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-central-advisory-board-of-education.html
12. https://testbook.com/full-form/cabe-full-form
13. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-national-education-policy-2020-and-the-future-of-cooperative-federalism-in-india
14. https://www.tscld.com/decentralize-education-india
15. https://www.livelaw.in/amp/articles/erosion-educational-federalism-battle-university-vice-chancellors-513568
16. https://www.impriindia.com/insights/ugc-regulation-and-federalism/