NAAC grades to be replaced by binary system, One Nation One Data to end multiple agency submissions: Chairman

Anil Sahasrabudhe, chairman of National Educational Technology Forum (NETF), the executive committee of National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), and National Board of Accreditation (NBA), speaks with Academia360 about the reforms in accreditation bodies, global accreditation standards, NIRF rankings, ‘One Nation One Data’ initiative, and more. Edited excerpts below.

You’ve held some of the most pivotal positions in India’s higher education ecosystem. Could you explain the ongoing reforms in NAAC and NBA?

The reforms in NAAC began after the ministry of education formed the Dr. Radhakrishnan Committee, which was tasked with recommending improvements in approval, accreditation, ranking, and overall evaluation approaches. The committee’s recommendations were accepted about a year-and-a-half ago. Since then, NAAC has initiated a comprehensive reform process through expert consultations and detailed assessments of existing challenges.

One major issue is low participation in accreditation. Currently, only around 40% of universities and 18% of colleges come forward for NAAC accreditation. To address this, NAAC is introducing a new system called Basic or Binary Accreditation to ensure every institution meets a minimum quality benchmark. Under this model, traditional grades like NAAC A, A+,A++, B, B+, or C+ will be phased out. Institutions will either be accredited or not, based on essential quality criteria. This reform aims to establish a baseline of quality that all institutions must meet to operate.

In parallel, NAAC is working on a Maturity-Based Graded Accreditation System, which will allow institutions to progress beyond basic accreditation through continuous improvement. Institutions can move through five levels (L1 to L5) based on increasing quality benchmarks:

• L1-L3 increasing levels of accreditation
• L4: National and regional excellence
• L5: International excellence, aligning with the top universities globally.

Each level will involve more detailed metrics and higher performance standards.

Regarding NBA, India is a signatory to the Washington Accord, which ensures that engineering degrees from accredited programmes are recognised as substantially equivalent across 26 member countries under the Washington Accord of International Engineering Alliance. This enhances global mobility and credibility of Indian engineering graduates.

The NBA has evolved its assessment frameworks over time. We are currently following the Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies (GAPC) 3.0 model. From 2026 onwards, all signatory countries, including India, must adopt GAPC 4.0, which puts greater emphasis on foundational sciences, complex problem-solving, sustainability and holistic value based education in engineering. NBA has already adopted GAPC4.0

These reforms in both NAAC and NBA aim to create a more inclusive, quality-driven, and globally competitive higher education system in India.

The NEP emphasises a multidisciplinary approach. How is this being implemented in the context of engineering education?

The multidisciplinary approach is already embedded within the Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies (GAPC) framework adopted by the NBA. GAPC encourages a holistic understanding of problems, emphasizing the need for engineers to solve complex engineering challenges while considering broader social, ethical, and environmental impacts.

Today, engineering is deeply interconnected with society and the planet. The idea is that development should not only be technically sound but also ethically responsible and environmentally sustainable. This is reflected in the inclusion of value-based education, environmental consciousness, sustainability principles, and alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within the curriculum.

Both Tier 1 and Tier 2 NBA-accredited institutions have adopted this framework. Tier 1 institutions, being autonomous, have the freedom to design their curriculum and examination systems, allowing them to rapidly integrate 21st-century skills, employability focus, vocational training, critical thinking, and analytical ability into their programmes.

In Tier 2 institutions, affiliated to universities, the responsibility lies with the affiliating university to revise and upgrade the curriculum. The goal is to ensure that students not only gain technical skills but also develop the ability to understand the broader implications of technology. For example, the problems we solve today must not create new problems tomorrow. Unfortunately, much of the industrial and technological progress over the past two centuries has harmed the environment through pollution, overuse of plastic, and unsustainable practices.

That’s why concepts like circular economy, recycling, reuse, and the protection of clean air and water must be ingrained in engineering education. These values are not just idealistic —they're essential for the well-being of our planet and future generations. Both the NEP 2020 and GAPC framework is helping India move in this direction.

Many management institutions in India are seeking international accreditations like AACSB. Why do you think we are still lagging, and what could help transform the Indian accreditation system?

My earlier comments primarily focused on engineering education, which is governed internationally by the Washington Accord under the International Engineering Alliance. NBA, as a signatory to that accord, follows global best practices in engineering accreditation. However, it's important to note that many of these quality benchmarks and evaluative practices are equally applicable to other disciplines, such as management, pharmacy, architecture, hotel management, and applied arts. NBA provides programme-specific accreditation in all these areas, whereas NAAC conducts institution-wide accreditation.

In the NBA's case, the same philosophy, metrics, and quality standards applied to engineering are extended to management and other domains. So when it comes to comparison with international agencies like AACSB — which focuses on business education — we are not behind in terms of quality parameters. In fact, in several areas, NBA's criteria are more rigorous.

Unlike the Washington Accord, there is no single global framework or international alliance for management education accreditation. Agencies like AACSB, AMBA, and EQUIS operate independently, without a unified body or mutual recognition system. This means Indian institutions often seek AACSB accreditation for brand recognition, even though NBA standards can be equally or more demanding. For example, while some management programmes under NBA receive three-year accreditation, very few receive the full six-year accreditation, indicating how stringent our quality expectations are.

Overall, while international accreditations such as AACSB hold significant value, India’s own accreditation systems, especially the NBA, are competitive on a global level. With ongoing reforms and increased efforts to raise awareness, these bodies are poised to expand their reach and gain greater recognition worldwide.

From a student’s perspective, how do accreditation bodies like NAAC and NBA directly impact their academic experience and future prospects?

Accreditation by bodies like NAAC and NBA directly impacts students by ensuring that the institution they are studying in meets defined standards of quality in education. For example, under the NBA, there are 11 core metrics that focus on aspects such as foundational knowledge in science and engineering, understanding the connection between engineering and society, problem-solving ability, critical thinking, and analytical skills. These metrics ensure that programme outcomes are clearly defined, and that each course contributes meaningfully to those outcomes. This directly influences the curriculum design, teaching-learning methods, internships, and overall academic experience.

NAAC, on the other hand, assesses institutions holistically – infrastructure, faculty quality, curriculum relevance, student support systems, and governance. It ensures that institutions are not only maintaining minimum quality standards but are also committed to continuous improvement.

For students, this translates into a better learning environment, improved employability, and confidence that their degree holds national or even international recognition. However, only about 40% of universities and 18% of colleges in India are currently accredited. This means a large number of students are still studying in institutions without any formal quality assurance. That’s why the push for wider accreditation is so important — not to penalise institutions, but to support them.

Once that happens, even students in remote or rural areas will have access to affordable, quality education.

Students often tell us that only 100 to 200 institutions appear in NIRF rankings, despite there being over 3,000 engineering colleges. Especially in Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 cities, students are often unaware of the quality of education there. Are there any plans to include more institutions in rankings or increase their visibility?

To address this, the education ministry has introduced the “One Nation One Data” initiative. Currently, institutions submit data multiple times throughout the year to various agencies such as AISHE, NAAC, NBA, AICTE, UGC, state governments, and affiliating universities. These repeated submissions often result in inconsistencies and discrepancies in the data.

The new centralised portal will allow institutions to submit their data only once a year. All agencies will then access the required data via APIs, significantly reducing the administrative burden on institutions and improving data accuracy. We are also developing AI-based tools to detect anomalies and flag suspicious data, which will facilitate easier verification.

This system encourages institutions to form internal committees to carefully review and validate data before submission, thereby enhancing the truthfulness, honesty, and integrity of the information provided. Often, when multiple agencies require data, different personnel fill out submissions independently, which can lead to errors — sometimes deliberate, but more often due to misunderstanding. This initiative will standardise the process, improve data reliability, and ultimately encourage more institutions to participate confidently in accreditation and ranking processes.

Are there plans to provide any training to institutions to help them fill out the data uniformly and accurately?

Yes, once we clearly define the data requirements, institutions will better understand what is expected of them and will be able to submit the data correctly. Initially, we trust the institutions and do not suspect anyone of deliberately providing incorrect data. The data submitted will be made transparent and published on the institution’s website for stakeholders to view. If any complaints arise, that’s when we intervene.

We don’t need to verify data from every institution individually; we operate on trust. However, if an institution is found to have deliberately submitted false information, strict penalties will be imposed.

The National Education Policy emphasises “light but tight” regulations — meaning the system permits institutions to be honest and trustworthy while expecting them to submit accurate data. But at the same time, there are consequences for dishonesty.

Once this framework is in place, it will likely encourage more institutions to participate. The number of ranked institutes could grow to 500 or more as data accuracy and trust improve.

Barring a few, institutions in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities lack research activities. Since 30% weightage in rankings is assigned to research, could this be a reason for their non-participation?

One of the key initiatives that the government has already implemented is "One Nation, One Subscription," which emphasises unified access to resources across government institutions. This initiative ensures government institutions across the country — including central institutions like IITs, NITs, IISc, and several central universities, state universities and colleges— can access scientific journals and databases through a centralised subscription model.

Previously, these institutions subscribed to resources independently, often incurring high individual costs. Under the new model, approximately the same total expenditure has been pooled to extend access to over 6,000 institutions, including Tier 2 and Tier 3 colleges and universities.

In addition, the establishment of the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) last year, with substantial funding, has further strengthened the research ecosystem. Under this initiative, top-ranked institutions (referred to as "hubs") receive funding and are mandated to partner with at least seven other less-established institutions (called "spokes"). This hub-and-spoke model ensures that research support and mentorship trickle down to smaller colleges and universities, including those in rural and tribal regions, thereby expanding the country’s overall research capacity.

Moreover, steps are being taken to improve access to research infrastructure, such as shared equipment and lab facilities, through these collaborative networks. Institutions are also encouraged to engage in research that requires lower financial investment and to seek industry-funded projects.

Lastly, in terms of accreditation and ranking, research is a key criterion. However, other activities — such as innovation and applied research projects — are also valued and recognised. While it may seem that institutions in remote or rural areas face disadvantages, the government is actively working to bridge these gaps through mentoring, funding, and policy support. Over time, these efforts aim to bring all institutions up to the standards of those in Tier 1 cities.

There has been recent controversy and criticism about NAAC allegedly manipulating the accreditation process, such as the KLEF University case. What is your take on this?

The fact that such cases have been caught shows that the government is very serious about preventing corrupt or wrong practices in accreditation. Unlike in the past, when data was only in physical files and difficult to verify, today’s digitisation and availability of data in soft form, combined with artificial intelligence techniques, make it much easier to detect wrongdoing.

All data is posted on the institution’s website, allowing stakeholders to monitor and report any discrepancies or fake information. When complaints arise, the agencies conduct further verification, and institutions found providing false data are penalised. Such penalties can include losing accreditation for up to five years or being barred from rankings for three years. This creates a strong deterrent.

KLEF has been reportedly benefiting from NAAC accreditation, such as opening off-campus centres. Will students be impacted by these accreditation processes if such institutions are derecognised?

Once an institution is derecognised or barred from participating in accreditation or ranking processes, it becomes clear which universities maintain quality standards and which do not. This helps students make informed decisions about where to study.

What about institutions that obtained accreditation through questionable means?

They must tighten their belts. We will not accept anything that is wrong or unethical from anyone. Every institution must have its own Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC). The dean academic and the principal need to engage closely with their faculty to ensure everyone puts in their best effort to improve continuously. Anything less than honest and diligent effort is unacceptable.

What are the biggest challenges you face while implementing reforms in quality and accreditation?

Actually, there are no major challenges now. The main issue was what needed to be done earlier wasn’t done. But things are changing. The processes are now well-defined and simplified. For example, if previously institutions had to provide information on 100 parameters and couldn’t manage it, we have reduced and simplified the metrics. Now, institutes have enough faculty and resources to collect data more accurately and authentically.

This also helps them identify areas where they scored low, so in the next cycle, they can focus on improving those specific parameters.

You mentioned the ‘One Nation One Data’ initiative, where accreditation bodies can access institution data. Is this data available for students so they can compare institutions?

Yes, all these parameters and data are posted on the institution’s websites and are open to the public. Anyone can access this information. It’s mandatory for institutions to publish their data transparently on their websites, otherwise, they risk losing accreditation or ranking eligibility.

What is your vision to improve the system?

All the reforms aim to improve the overall quality of education in the system. In India, we have five fundamental principles guiding education, which are reiterated in the National Education Policy (NEP) – access, equity, quality, accountability, and affordability. These pillars are crucial.

The effectiveness of these committees depends on how stakeholders — students, faculty, and outsiders — use them. Transparency is key. All information is publicly accessible online, empowering students, faculty, industry, media, and other stakeholders to be aware and vigilant.

Are there any new initiatives in the NETF?

Yes, we are continuously leveraging technology to improve education content and delivery. Augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning are being used to create content that sparks student interest, encouraging self-learning and peer learning beyond traditional classroom methods. We have also expanded Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) platforms with employability-focused courses aligned with industry needs.

One unique initiative is the Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry (APAAR) — a lifelong learning ID for every student that links to the Academic Bank of Credit. This functions like a bank account, where every learning achievement — whether from formal university courses, MOOCs, sports, arts, or other extracurricular activities — can be deposited and authenticated by issuing agencies. This creates a dynamic, lifelong academic and skill profile or CV for the student.

This system benefits students when transferring between universities, applying for jobs, or taking entrance exams, as all verified credentials can be accessed and auto-filled digitally, simplifying the process. It supports not only degree programmes but also skill development and continuous learning throughout life, keeping learners relevant in a rapidly changing world.

This piece first appeared in the 200th issue of the Academia360 magazine, published in August 2025.