Inside India’s NEP Overhaul: Wins, Gaps, And State Pushback
Inside India’s NEP Overhaul: Wins, Gaps, And State Pushback
India’s National Education Policy entered a decisive phase of implementation over 2024 and 2025. The University Grants Commission advanced biannual admissions and clarified pathways for multiple entry and exit, while universities expanded four-year programmes and dual-degree options. According to PRS Legislative Research, NEP 2020 reorganized schooling into 5+3+3+4 and mandated a shift toward flexibility and multidisciplinary learning. The Ministry of Education’s National Credit Framework set common levels and creditization for school, skill, and higher education, and the Academic Bank of Credits began underpinning transfers and re-entry. The National Testing Agency’s CUET-UG 2024 accommodated over 1.3 million registrants, reinforcing common testing’s footprint across central and several other universities.
Here’s what’s happening. Universities are restructuring calendars and curricula to accommodate biannual intakes and credit mobility. Schools are aligning pedagogy and assessments with the new curriculum framework. PM SHRI schools continue phased upgrades. Yet states are diverging on degree structure and language policy, with Karnataka reverting to a three-year UG model for new cohorts and Tamil Nadu reiterating a two-language approach. The key issue is whether the policy’s flexibility can absorb these divergences without disrupting students. What this means is that the next year is about mechanics: IDs, credits, admissions windows, board assessment changes, and funding cooperation. This analysis explains those mechanics, maps state-centre tensions, and lists the indicators that will reveal whether NEP is delivering gains in access, quality, and equity.
Situation Overview and Why It Matters Now
NEP 2020 was approved on 29 July 2020 with a comprehensive blueprint for school and higher education. The National Curriculum Framework for School Education followed on 29 July 2023, translating the 5+3+3+4 structure into pedagogy, assessment, and subject choice. In higher education, the Academic Bank of Credits operationalized credit storage and transfer from 2021 onward, and the National Credit Framework notified in 2023 defined common levels and recognition across general and vocational streams.
In 2024, UGC issued draft regulations enabling biannual admissions, and universities began aligning admission calendars and seat management for January/February and July/August entry. CUET-UG 2024 reported 13.47 lakh registrations and over 11.13 lakh examinees, underscoring the scale of centralized admissions in the undergraduate segment. On 09 May 2024 and 10 May 2024, Karnataka announced a reversion to a three-year UG programme for new intakes, while continuing to teach students already in the four-year track. In 2025, statements in Chennai reiterated Centre–State contention over language policy and cooperation under centrally sponsored schemes, bringing funding linkages back into headlines.
This matters now because admissions cycles, student mobility, and school assessments are changing in the same window. Families are making choices about CUET participation, four-year degrees, and mid-course exits. Institutions are grappling with new timetables and credit recognition. The immediate question is whether these shifts increase opportunity without creating new bottlenecks.
How the New Architecture Works: Credits, IDs and Mobility
The National Credit Framework creates a laddered system where learning at school, in skill programs, and at university is “creditized” and mapped to common levels. According to the government’s notification, levels run from foundational learning through doctoral study, with descriptors tied to outcomes. The Academic Bank of Credits is the ledger: students earn credits, store them digitally, and redeem them for progression or credentials across recognized institutions. The ABC links to DigiLocker and uses a lifelong learner identity.
That identity is the APAAR ID, designed as a unique academic account for every student. According to official descriptions, the APAAR ID enables credit mapping, reduces paperwork, and supports portability. In practice, progress depends on data readiness. School systems must collect consents, verify records, and regularly update UDISE and DigiLocker fields. Universities must adopt common credit definitions, issue credits promptly to ABC, and accept transfers transparently. Where systems are ready, the promise is real: the ability to pause, switch institutions, or stack credentials without losing learning value. Where systems lag—due to connectivity, staffing, or data quality—students can face delays in verification or credit reflection. The upside is flexibility; the risk is a new digital divide unless onboarding and support are robust.
Higher Education Reforms in Practice
Four-year undergraduate programmes aim to add breadth, undergraduate research options, and an honors-with-research pathway. Multiple entry–exit rules allow students to earn a certificate after one year, diploma after two, a degree after three, and an honors/honors with research after four, with re-entry using banked credits. UGC has enabled biannual admissions, moving toward January/February and July/August entry windows—this can reduce lost years and align with global mobility. Universities also have guidelines permitting two academic programmes simultaneously under specified conditions, expanding choice but demanding careful scheduling.
Stakeholder responses vary. Central universities broadly aligned with CUET-based admissions and are expanding FYUGP. Several state universities have adopted four years, while others remain at three. Karnataka’s policy shift back to three years for new entrants shows the federal latitude in higher education design. For students, benefits include flexibility and more on-ramps. For institutions, costs include timetable redesign, faculty workload balancing, and capacity to counsel students on entry–exit decisions. Equity questions arise around who benefits from flexibility: learners in metros with robust digital infrastructure may gain faster, while first-generation students may need strong advising to navigate choices without unintended exits.
School Education Rollout and PM-SHRI
NCF 2023 brings the 5+3+3+4 structure to life. Foundational and preparatory stages add structured play and language-rich environments; middle stage increases integration across subjects; secondary stage emphasizes choice, projects, and assessments aligned with competencies. Boards, including CBSE, are adjusting assessment models and creditization references to align with the National Credit Framework. Teachers face new curriculum maps, continuous assessment, and updated materials—this raises training demand, especially in states rolling out across multiple grades simultaneously.
PM SHRI schools operate as exemplar institutions selected in phases through a challenge route. According to the Department of School Education’s 2024 year-end review, over twelve thousand schools across 32 states and union territories had been selected by the fourth phase, distributed across primary to senior secondary levels. The program finances infrastructure, pedagogy, and green features with a focus on demonstrable learning outcomes. The near-term test is whether these exemplar schools can diffuse practices to their clusters. The key constraint remains staffing and training bandwidth, especially for competency-based assessment and integration of vocational modules in Classes IX–XII.
Fault Lines and Federal Dynamics
Language policy, admissions control, and degree structure sit at the core of centre–state friction. Tamil Nadu maintains a two-language policy while the Union government promotes a three-language formula in line with NEP’s flexibility, and public remarks in September 2025 connected alignment to cooperation under centrally sponsored schemes. Karnataka’s departure from FYUGP for new cohorts underscores states’ curricular autonomy in higher education, confirmed by recent judicial deference to the policy domain. Universities in Delhi and elsewhere continue to run CUET-driven admissions but adapt with mop-up rounds to fill seats, reflecting operational pressures.
For learners, the risk is discontinuity—when a state shifts structures, cohorts can face different degree lengths and transfer complexities. For teachers and administrators, the volume of change—curriculum, assessment, calendars, and digital IDs—arriving within two cycles can strain capacity. For the Union government, the challenge is to maintain national portability and comparability while accommodating state preferences. The shared interest is student protection: ensuring that flexibility never converts to fragmentation, and that credit portability works across state boundaries.
Critical Tension Points Analysis
Fundamental Tensions:
Language Policy Versus Flexibility: According to reports, Tamil Nadu’s two-language stance continues while NEP promotes a three-language formula with choice. The Union education minister linked alignment to cooperation under centrally sponsored schemes in public remarks in Chennai in September 2025. States emphasize cultural and administrative autonomy; the Centre emphasizes national mobility and standards.
Degree Length And State Autonomy: NEP’s four-year degree is positioned as a national template, but Karnataka’s policy for new cohorts returned to three years. Universities balancing FYUGP adoption must account for inter-state transfers and postgraduate admissions criteria across mixed 3-year and 4-year credentials.
Unresolved Questions:
Uniform Credit Acceptance: Will all state universities accept ABC-stored credits earned elsewhere without friction, and how quickly will credits reflect for graduating students?
APAAR Adoption And Data Quality: How fast can systems reach near-universal APAAR issuance with accurate records, and what safeguards will address Aadhaar-linked mismatches?
Trade-off Dynamics:
Access Versus Capacity: Biannual admissions and multiple entry points expand access, but institutions must schedule courses, labs, and evaluations year-round; limited faculty and support staff can dilute quality if not funded.
Centralization Versus Diversity: CUET simplifies applications for central institutions, but varying participation by state and private universities maintains a mixed market; aligning calendars and recognition requires ongoing negotiation.
Dynamic Impact Assessment
Immediate Effects
Admissions calendars have widened. Several universities moved to biannual intakes, reducing lost time for late deciders. CUET-UG 2024 recorded 13.47 lakh registrations, confirming continued reliance among central universities. PM SHRI schools received phased selection and support, with thousands identified for upgrades. APAAR onboarding accelerated, with large states reporting partial coverage and active efforts to resolve data mismatches. Karnataka’s reversion to three years for new UG entrants created a dual regime coexisting with ongoing four-year cohorts.
Medium-term Implications
If implemented with adequate staffing, multiple entry–exit will lower dropout penalties by allowing learners to re-enter using stored credits. The four-year pathway, where adopted, may improve undergraduate research exposure and align with global norms for direct PhD eligibility. Biannual admissions could attract working learners and international students whose cycles misalign with July starts. In school education, competency-based assessment aligned with NCF can reduce rote learning if teacher training is sustained and materials are timely. State–centre divergences may persist, but the National Credit Framework could act as a “common currency,” enabling recognition even when degree lengths differ.
Key Indicators to Watch
APAAR Issuance And Accuracy: Percentage of students with active IDs by grade-band and state; rate of resolved name/record mismatches.
ABC Utilization: Number of institutions issuing credits to ABC; average time from course completion to credit reflection; volume of inter-institutional transfers.
CUET Participation And Seat Fill Rates: Registrations, attendance, and the share of seats filled in central universities without mop-up.
FYUGP Adoption And Outcomes: Number of universities offering honors-with-research; enrollment share by programme length; postgraduate admission alignment for three-year versus four-year graduates.
PM SHRI School Outcomes: Attendance, grade-level proficiency in language and math, and teacher vacancy rates relative to non-PM SHRI schools.
Uncertainty Areas
Some UGC provisions are in draft or iterative stages, and timelines can shift. CUET participation by private and state universities remains mixed; policies can evolve by sector and program. APAAR’s integration with ABC and state scholarship systems is expanding but uneven, with privacy debates ongoing. Language policy and funding cooperation are political as well as administrative questions; positions can harden or soften with state budgets and examination calendars.
Key Takeaways
Five findings stand out. First, the backbone of NEP—common credit levels, a national credit ledger, and flexible pathways—is in place, but the experience hinges on APAAR coverage and ABC performance. Second, admissions reforms are expanding options through CUET and biannual intakes, yet seat fill and scheduling pressures persist; institutions need proactive counseling and course planning. Third, states retain real autonomy: Karnataka’s degree-length pivot and Tamil Nadu’s language stance show national templates will be locally adapted. Fourth, PM SHRI offers a testbed for school-level change; consistent teacher training and vacancy reduction will determine whether infrastructure translates to learning. Finally, equity is the make-or-break dimension: flexibility benefits only if students receive guidance to use exits strategically and re-enter smoothly. Next steps for stakeholders include: creating helpdesks for APAAR and ABC issues; publishing credit-posting timelines; aligning three-year and four-year postgraduate admissions criteria; and reporting PM SHRI outcomes quarterly. Keep watching APAAR adoption rates, ABC transaction volumes, CUET seat utilization, and FYUGP completion data. These metrics will show whether NEP’s flexibility becomes a real, fair advantage for all learners.