The Union government has proposed the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) Bill, 2025 to overhaul India’s higher education regulatory framework.
The move is aligned with the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020, particularly its recommendation to minimise conflicts of interest in higher education governance.
Separation of Powers
The Bill removes grant-disbursal powers from the regulatory authority, a role currently performed by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
It creates separate councils for:
Regulation
Accreditation
Standards-setting
This segregation is described by the government as a “conscious decision” to ensure functional independence and transparency.
New Institutional Architecture
The VBSA Bill proposes replacing existing bodies:
UGC
All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)
These will be replaced by a single apex commission — VBSA, which will coordinate the three autonomous councils.
Grant Disbursal Mechanism
Under the proposed law, grant disbursal to Central universities will be handled by the Ministry of Education, not the regulatory authority.
Officials stated that:
The new funding mechanism will be “similar to or better than” existing systems.
Regulatory compliance and institutional performance will remain major factors in determining funding.
Funding decisions will adopt a “holistic view”, not based solely on compliance metrics.
Rationale for Ministry-Controlled Funding
Although NEP 2020 suggested a separate grants council, the government said this was not feasible due to:
Multiple funding sources and channels across higher education institutions.
Hence, retaining grant control within the Education Ministry was considered more practical.
Concerns and Opposition
A coalition of teachers’ and students’ associations and unions has raised objections.
Key concern:
Grant disbursal under direct ministry control could expose funding decisions to political influence.
The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha amid Opposition objections.
Parliamentary Scrutiny
The government has proposed referring the Bill to a 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee.
Officials expressed willingness to:
Engage in intensive deliberations
Encourage stakeholder suggestions during the committee review process.
Overall Significance
The VBSA Bill represents a major structural reform of higher education governance in India.
It shifts the system from regulator-cum-funder to a functionally separated model, aiming to enhance accountability while raising concerns about autonomy and political oversight.
Insurance Amendment Bill
Key Legislative Change
Lok Sabha passed a Bill to increase Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the insurance sector from 74% to 100%.
The Bill amends three core laws:
Insurance Act, 1938
Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) Act, 1956
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) Act, 1999
Government’s Rationale and Objectives
Attract higher capital inflows to support the long-term capital-intensive insurance sector.
Enable global insurance companies to enter India without Indian joint-venture partners, reducing entry barriers.
Facilitate access to advanced technology, global best practices, and diversified insurance products.
Expand insurance penetration in a largely underinsured Indian market.
Regulatory Safeguards and Assurances
All insurers, including 100% foreign-owned entities, will:
Be fully governed by Indian laws
Remain under IRDAI regulation and supervision
The government sought to address opposition concerns over foreign control and policyholder safety.
Reinsurance and Risk Capacity Enhancement
Net owned fund requirement for foreign reinsurance branches (FRBs) reduced:
From ₹5,000 crore to ₹1,000 crore
Intended to:
Encourage more global reinsurers to operate in India
Increase risk-bearing capacity
Create a level playing field between FRBs in the domestic tariff area and those in IFSCs (International Financial Services Centres)
Strengthening Public Sector Insurers
Government reiterated commitment to public sector insurance companies:
₹17,450 crore capital infusion into three public sector general insurers
Listing of LIC, GIC Re, and New India Assurance cited as reforms to improve transparency and governance
Indicates a dual-track approach: liberalisation alongside public sector strengthening
Enhanced Regulatory Powers and Compliance
IRDAI empowered to:
Disgorge wrongful gains made by insurers and intermediaries
Penalty framework rationalised:
Maximum penalty for insurance intermediaries increased from ₹1 crore to ₹10 crore
Intended to deter violations and encourage regulatory compliance
Aligns intermediary penalties with those applicable to insurers
Industry Perspective
Insurance industry leaders termed the Bill a landmark reform
Emphasis on:
Policyholder protection
Transparency
Trust-building in the insurance ecosystem
Seen as strengthening the regulator’s role and improving market discipline
Political Context and Concerns
Bill passed amid opposition protests, reflecting concerns over:
Foreign dominance in a sensitive financial sector
Long-term implications for domestic insurers and employment
Government countered with assurances on regulation and public sector support
Overall Assessment
The Bill marks a major structural reform in India’s insurance sector.
Balances market liberalisation with regulatory tightening.
Expected to:
Increase competition and innovation
Deepen insurance penetration
Strengthen India’s position as a global insurance and reinsurance hub
Long-term success will depend on effective regulation, consumer protection, and fair competition.
Round-the-Clock Trading in U.S. Stock Markets
Proposed Market Reform
U.S. equity markets are moving toward near round-the-clock weekday trading for the first time.
Nasdaq has filed with regulators to extend trading to 23 hours a day on weekdays, with a broader market rollout expected next year.
Regulators have approved new rules allowing exchanges to extend trading hours.
Drivers Behind the Move
Rising global demand for access to U.S. capital markets, particularly from investors outside U.S. time zones.
Increasing participation by retail investors, who seek the ability to respond immediately to news breaking outside normal U.S. market hours.
Competition among exchanges to remain attractive in an increasingly global and digital trading environment.
Role of Market Infrastructure
U.S. exchanges, clearing houses, and market infrastructure firms are working to:
Build systems capable of continuous trading
Ensure settlement, clearing, and risk management processes function with minimal downtime
Implementation requires significant investment across the financial ecosystem.
Banks’ and Brokers’ Concerns
Several major U.S. banks (e.g., JPMorgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley) are cautious or reluctant.
Key concerns include:
High technology and operational costs, potentially running into tens of billions of dollars
Uncertainty about return on investment and revenue upside
The need for continuous staffing, risk controls, and system upgrades
Risk Management and Market Stability Issues
Banks worry about handling market-moving events during overnight hours.
Continuous trading complicates:
Risk monitoring
End-of-day processes
Compliance and supervisory controls
Regulators and banks stress the need for robust protections before full-scale rollout.
Liquidity and Market Quality Concerns
Experts warn that overnight trading is likely to be thinly traded.
Potential consequences:
Less accurate price discovery
Wider bid–ask spreads
Higher volatility
Increased transaction costs
Institutional investors, including BlackRock, have highlighted these risks.
Institutional vs Retail Demand
Retail investors and overseas traders are seen as the primary beneficiaries.
Institutional investors show limited enthusiasm:
Many do not see sufficient demand to justify system-wide changes
Large asset managers question whether liquidity will be adequate
Banks argue institutional participation is essential for deep, stable markets.
Industry Perspectives
Some analysts view round-the-clock trading as a “nuisance” rather than a revenue driver for banks.
Concerns that benefits may accrue mainly to exchanges, while costs fall heavily on banks and brokers.
Broader Implications
Could reshape global equity market access by making U.S. markets continuously available.
Raises questions about:
Market fairness
Efficiency
Systemic risk
Success will depend on:
Sufficient liquidity
Effective risk management
Balanced cost-sharing across market participants
Overall Assessment
The move toward round-the-clock trading reflects the globalisation of U.S. equity markets.
While technologically feasible, it faces significant resistance from banks due to cost, risk, and uncertain demand.
The reform’s long-term viability will hinge on whether investor participation and liquidity justify the structural overhaul.
