With Another Bill On Anvil, Should Education Return To The State List?
Neet illustrates the problem, although it does not settle the federal question. The Neet-UG examination held on May 3, 2026, was cancelled after an alleged paper leak. More than 22 lakh candidates were affected, and a re-examination was held on June 21. A failure in a national examination, therefore, affected students across the country simultaneously
Education has been on the Concurrent List since 1976, when the 42nd Amendment moved it from the State List. Parliament is now considering the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, which would replace the UGC, AICTE, and NCTE with a single regulator. A joint parliamentary committee is examining it. The Neet paper leak and education minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation have renewed the debate, while Tamil Nadu has again demanded that education return to the State List. The larger question, however, is whether the present division of powers gives governments enough authority and clear responsibility for education.
Finance is a useful starting point. The latest comparable ministry of education figures, for 2022-23, put Centre / State / UT budgeted education expenditure by all departments at about Rs 10.67 lakh crore on the revenue account. States and UTs accounted for Rs 7.81 lakh crore, or 73.2 per cent. This is budgeted expenditure, not actual spending. States run most school education and a large part of higher education. However, central laws, regulators, national schemes, and Union-framed standards increasingly shape what they can do. This creates an accountability problem. A government that pays for and implements a policy needs enough authority to shape it and should be answerable for its results.
Neet illustrates the problem, although it does not settle the federal question. The Neet-UG examination held on May 3, 2026, was cancelled after an alleged paper leak. More than 22 lakh candidates were affected, and a re-examination was held on June 21. A failure in a national examination, therefore, affected students across the country simultaneously. Centralisation also has a clear advantage: it provides a common eligibility test and a common benchmark. State-level examinations have also faced malpractice. The issue is therefore where national uniformity is necessary and where states should have greater room to decide.
Tamil Nadu’s experience deserves attention here. The Justice A.K. Rajan Committee reported that after Neet, the share of rural, Tamil-medium, lower-income, and State Board students among medical admissions in the state declined. These findings cannot establish that Neet caused all the changes. Coaching access, school choices, and other factors may also have played a role. The findings are relevant to the question of whether a single national examination works equally well for students from different educational backgrounds.
The Supreme Court has upheld the Neet framework, and any case for decentralisation must address the reasons for a common examination. Does a single test correct differences in the quality and comparability of state examinations? If so, which part of that standardisation requires Union control? These questions point to a more precise division of powers. National standards can coexist with greater state authority over implementation and educational priorities. The constitutional position also sets limits on a simple return to the State List. Entry 66 of the Union List gives Parliament power over coordination and determination of standards in higher education and research institutions. The Union can also provide grants for public purposes. These powers mean that even greater state autonomy would not end central influence. The real task would be to define the boundary between setting national standards and regulating day-to-day education.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill makes this issue more immediate. It seeks to replace the UGC, AICTE, and NCTE with a single Commission and three councils that handle regulation, accreditation and standards. Medical and legal education are excluded. The Bill raises a wider question about the concentration of regulatory power in higher education. The Joint Parliamentary Committee has heard state governments and other stakeholders. It is an opportunity to examine how much regulation needs to remain with the Union.
Employment provides another reason to give states greater policy space. The State of Working India 2026 reports graduate unemployment of 39.33 per cent among those below 25 and 20.04 per cent among those aged 25-29 years, using PLFS 2023-24 data. It also shows that the transition from education to stable employment remains difficult. Education policy cannot solve this alone. Industrial growth, labour demand, and local economic conditions also shape employment. States with different economic structures should therefore have room to align curricula, vocational education and higher education with local needs.
States may, therefore, need greater policy space, but greater decentralisation also raises practical concerns. Different state rules could complicate degree recognition, credit transfer, student mobility and the enforcement of minimum standards. Fiscal capacity also differs sharply among states. More autonomy without adequate resources could increase inequality. These concerns require safeguards. A national qualifications framework, interoperable credit systems, common minimum standards and equalisation support from the Union can address many of these issues. The case for reconsidering the present arrangement, therefore, does not rest on the claim that states will automatically produce better education. Nor does 50 years on the Concurrent List prove that the arrangement has failed. The stronger argument is about the division of responsibility. States carry most of the financial and administrative burden, while the Union has gained substantial influence over regulation, standards and educational policy.
Education could return to the State List, with Union powers for national standards, coordination, mobility and equity. A less radical option would be to retain education on the Concurrent List but substantially strengthen state authority within it. Either way, the aim should be a clearer federal framework. The Joint Parliamentary Committee examining the Bill can begin that discussion. The issue should be approached as a question of constitutional design. Who should decide what is taught, how institutions are governed and how educational priorities are set? The answer should give states enough authority to shape education and responsibility for its outcomes.
P. John J. Kennedy is former professor and dean, Christ University, Bengaluru
