State Councils of Higher Education: Improving Governance at the State Level

India’s higher education system serves over 43 million students across thousands of universities and colleges – a scale that no single central body can meaningfully govern alone. While the University Grants Commission (UGC) sets national standards and disburses funds, the real challenge has always been closer to ground level: who plans, coordinates, and monitors higher education within each state? That gap is precisely what State Councils of Higher Education (SCHEs) were designed to fill. These councils represent one of India’s most deliberate attempts to decentralize educational governance – putting state-specific planning in the hands of dedicated bodies that understand local needs, demographics, and institutional realities.

The need for state-level planning in higher education 🔗

India’s higher education is governed under the Concurrent List of the Constitution, meaning both the central and state governments have legislative authority over it. In practice, this created a structural problem: the UGC operated at the national level, state governments managed individual universities, but there was no dedicated intermediate body to coordinate the two. Without such a body, state-level planning remained fragmented – different universities in the same state pursued different agendas, funding was inefficiently distributed, and national policies were poorly translated into local action.

The National Policy on Education (NPE) 1986 directly addressed this gap. It explicitly stated that state-level planning and coordination of higher education would be carried out through dedicated Councils of Higher Education, and that the UGC and these councils would develop coordinative methods to watch over academic standards together. This was a clear policy directive – one that called on states to establish statutory bodies capable of performing what the UGC simply could not do from New Delhi.

The primary functions envisaged for these councils included planning coordinated programmes of development for higher education, advising state governments on policy matters, supervising state universities, and ensuring that national educational standards were adapted to regional requirements. According to the UGC, these councils were to prepare coordinated programmes for the development of higher education within each state – a role distinct from, but complementary to, the UGC’s national mandate.

The Andhra Pradesh model: India’s first state council 🔗

Andhra Pradesh became the trailblazer in implementing the NPE 1986’s recommendation. The Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (APSCHE) came into existence on 20 May 1988, established through Act 16 of 1988 – making it the first such council in the country. It was designed primarily as a coordinating body between the UGC, the state government, and the universities of Andhra Pradesh.

APSCHE was created under Act 16 of 1988, in line with the NPE 1986 recommendations, and its general duty was to coordinate and determine standards in institutions of higher education, research, scientific, and technical institutions in accordance with UGC guidelines. The Act envisaged three distinct functions for the council: planning and coordination, academic functions, and advisory functions.

What APSCHE actually does 🔗

APSCHE’s work spans a wide range of responsibilities that reflect the complexity of managing higher education at the state level. On the academic side, it conducts entrance examinations for professional courses – including the well-known AP EAPCET for engineering and medical admissions – ensuring transparent and standardized access to higher education. It reviews and recommends curriculum reforms, particularly to align programmes with emerging employment needs and national educational priorities.

On the governance side, APSCHE monitors the functioning of universities, advises the state government on policy, and serves as the institutional link ensuring that what the UGC mandates at the national level is actually implemented in Andhra Pradesh’s colleges and universities. Its more recent initiatives include developing credit-based minors in quantum technologies and artificial intelligence, training faculty, and aligning seat allocation policies with the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act – showing how a state council can evolve to address not just legacy issues but contemporary educational demands.

The APSCHE model demonstrated that a dedicated state-level body could improve governance outcomes. Its success prompted other states across the country to establish their own councils. Today, states including Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Karnataka, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Odisha, Manipur, Mizoram, and several others have set up their own State Councils of Higher Education, each adapted to local conditions and governance structures.

Challenges in implementation 🔗

Despite the promise the APSCHE model demonstrated, the broader rollout of State Councils of Higher Education across India has been uneven. Several structural challenges have limited their effectiveness.

Bureaucratic inefficiency 🔗

One of the most persistent problems is bureaucratic inertia. India’s higher education governance – at both the national and state levels – is frequently cited for cumbersome administrative processes that slow decision-making and policy execution. Bureaucratic inertia, regulatory complexities, and overlapping mandates of regulatory bodies continue to hinder the effective functioning of governance structures, including state councils. When a council needs to introduce a new course, upgrade infrastructure, or respond to a quality concern, excessive procedural requirements can delay outcomes by months or even years.

Furthermore, the relationship between state councils and state governments is not always clearly defined in practice. Political interference, frequent changes in leadership, and a lack of insulation from administrative pressures have, in several states, reduced these councils to advisory bodies without meaningful authority to implement recommendations.

Resource constraints 🔗

Financial limitations represent another significant barrier. Many state councils operate with inadequate budgets that restrict their ability to conduct meaningful research, commission independent assessments, or invest in capacity building. Allocating sufficient funds across universities to effectively implement educational reforms requires significant financial resources – and state councils, which depend on state budgets, often find themselves underfunded relative to their mandate.

This resource crunch is compounded by the fact that most state universities in India – the institutions these councils are meant to supervise and support – are themselves financially constrained. Public spending on higher education in India remains relatively low, and without adequate resources flowing from the centre and states, both the universities and the councils overseeing them struggle to perform at expected levels.

Uneven implementation across states 🔗

Not all states have treated the establishment of their councils with equal seriousness. While Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka have functional and relatively active councils, several other states have either delayed setting up their councils or have established them in name only – with minimal staffing, poor infrastructure, and no clear operational mandate. Uneven implementation across states led to persistent regional disparities, a problem that the NPE 1986 itself identified as a central challenge but could not fully resolve through policy directive alone.

Future prospects: strengthening coordination with the UGC 🔗

The future of State Councils of Higher Education in India is directly tied to the evolution of the national regulatory architecture. The National Education Policy 2020 envisions a transformed regulatory landscape – one where overlapping bodies are streamlined and institutional autonomy is enhanced. The proposed Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) under NEP 2020 envisions state council chairpersons as members of an Advisory Council, directly integrating state-level governance into the national regulatory conversation. The Advisory Council’s proposed composition includes Chairpersons or Vice Chairpersons of all existing State Councils for Higher Education, which would give these bodies a formal voice in national policy decisions for the first time.

This is a significant shift. Currently, state councils largely receive directions from the UGC rather than contributing to the framing of those directions. Institutionalizing their participation in national-level deliberations would make the governance loop more complete – state experiences and regional data would directly inform national policy, and national standards would be implemented with better local context.

Technology and data-driven planning 🔗

Another area of future potential lies in the use of data and technology. State councils are well-positioned to serve as aggregators of institutional data – tracking enrolment trends, graduate employability, faculty shortages, and infrastructure gaps across all universities within their jurisdiction. If properly resourced, they could generate state-specific higher education dashboards that inform both state government decisions and UGC grant allocation priorities. APSCHE’s recent work in expanding the gross enrolment ratio and partnering with industry and global edtech platforms offers a template for how councils can operate with strategic intent rather than purely administrative function.

Aligning with NEP 2020’s decentralization vision 🔗

NEP 2020’s emphasis on decentralization, multidisciplinary education, and institutional flexibility gives state councils a renewed rationale. As universities gain greater autonomy to design curricula and offer flexible degree pathways, someone needs to oversee whether that autonomy is exercised responsibly and equitably. Complying with overlapping and sometimes contradictory regulations issued by multiple regulatory authorities is a key challenge for higher education institutions – state councils could serve as the single point of contact and guidance for universities navigating this complexity at the local level.

For this to happen, however, state councils need to be strengthened – not just in budget, but in autonomy, expertise, and legal authority. Councils that function merely as extensions of state education departments, without independent leadership or technical capacity, will continue to underperform. The model to emulate is one where the council operates as a genuine expert body: staffed by experienced administrators and academics, empowered to make binding recommendations, and held accountable for measurable outcomes in higher education quality.

India’s higher education system cannot be effectively governed from a single centre. The diversity of regional needs, languages, economic conditions, and institutional capacities demands a strong intermediate layer of governance – and that is exactly what State Councils of Higher Education are meant to provide. The Andhra Pradesh model proved the concept works. The challenge now is to make it work everywhere.

What do you think? Given that states differ so widely in resources and political priorities, should the central government make the establishment of a functional State Council of Higher Education a mandatory condition for UGC funding? And how can state councils be genuinely insulated from political interference while still remaining accountable to elected governments?

References

1. https://www.ugc.gov.in/
2. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/prs-products/prs-legislative-brief-3042
3. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/npe.pdf
4. https://www.ugc.gov.in/UGCofficials/State_Higher_Education_Councils
5. https://in.linkedin.com/company/andhra-pradesh-state-council-of-higher-education
6. https://www.unirank.org/in/org/andhra-pradesh-state-council-of-higher-education/
7. https://www.ijlra.com/details/governance-in-higher-education-institutions-in-india-%E2%80%93-past-present-and-future-by-assistant-professor-shabnam-akbar-pathan
8. https://ijabs.niilmuniversity.ac.in/the-issues-and-challenges-of-nep-national-educational-policy-2020-in-higher-education/
9. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/future-of-indian-higher-education-system
10. https://southasiajournal.net/nep-1986-modifications-shortcomings-and-challenges
11. https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/5294663_Salient-Featuresofnep-Eng-Higher-Education.pdf
12. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-draft-higher-education-commission-of-india-repeal-of-university-grants-commission-act-1956-bill-2018
13. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/recasting-higher-education-governance-in-india-an-analysis-of-the-vbsa-bill