www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3292
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Bridging Vision and Reality:Public Policy and the Implementation
Gap in India’s NEP 2020
Dr. Dipak R. Darji
1
, Rakesh M. Patel
2
1
Higher Education Block – 12, Dr. Jivraj Mehta Bhavan, Sector – 6 Government of Gujarat,
Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
2
Department of Mathematics,Government Science College, Sector - 15, Gandhinagar,Gujarat State,
India.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150600242
Received: 12 July 2026; Accepted: 17 July 2026; Published: 01 August 2026
ABSTRACT
The National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020) represents one of the most ambitious educational reform
initiatives undertaken in India in the past three decades. Conceived as a transformative framework, the policy
seeks to restructure the Indian education system by promoting multidisciplinary learning, flexibility in
academic pathways, integration of vocational education, and the adoption of technology-driven educational
practices. However, the success of any public policy is determined not only by the clarity of its vision but also
by the effectiveness of its implementation at the institutional level. This study examines the implementation of
NEP 2020 within undergraduate colleges affiliated with the University, focusing on the gap between policy
design and institutional execution. Employing a mixed-methods research design, the study draws on
quantitative survey data and qualitative insights gathered from ten affiliated colleges—two urban and eight
rural institutions. The findings reveal significant structural and administrative challenges that hinder effective
implementation, including inadequate infrastructure, shortages of trained faculty, limited digital readiness, and
an overburdened examination system. Furthermore, the study highlights the complexities of implementing
national-level reforms within a federal governance structure where educational policy is centrally formulated
but largely executed by state-level institutions. The analysis suggests that while NEP 2020 provides a visionary
blueprint for educational transformation, its success depends heavily on institutional preparedness, sustained
financial investment, and coordinated policy execution across governance levels. Bridging the implementation
gap is therefore essential to realize the transformative potential envisioned by NEP 2020.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3293
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Keywords: National Education Policy 2020; Higher Education Reform; Policy Implementation; Academic
Bank of Credits; Four-Year Undergraduate Programme; Multidisciplinary Education; Institutional
Preparedness; Vocational Education Integration; Public Policy; West Bengal Higher Education.
Subject Classification
Disciplines: Education Policy and Administration, Higher Education Studies, Public Policy and Governance,
Educational Reform and Development, JEL Codes: I28 – Education: Government Policy, I23 – Higher
Education; Research Institutions, H75 – State and Local Government: Health, Education, Welfare, Z000 –
Interdisciplinary Studies
INTRODUCTION
Education policies play a crucial role in shaping the intellectual, economic, and social development of nations.
In a knowledge-driven global economy, higher education systems must continuously adapt to emerging
technological, social, and economic demands. Recognizing these challenges, the Government of India
introduced the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which aims to transform the educational landscape
through structural reforms, curriculum redesign, and institutional restructuring. NEP 2020 marks a departure
from the long-standing framework established by earlier policies and attempts to create a holistic and
multidisciplinary educational ecosystem. Among its key proposals are the Four-Year Undergraduate
Programme (FYUGP), the Academic Bank of Credits (ABC), flexible entry and exit mechanisms,
integration of vocational education, and the promotion of multidisciplinary universities. Despite the ambitious
vision embedded in the policy, the process of translating national policy frameworks into institutional practice
often encounters significant challenges. The field of public policy analysis has long recognized the existence of
an implementation gap—the discrepancy between policy intentions and the outcomes achieved at the ground
level. This gap is particularly pronounced in complex federal systems such as India, where the responsibility
for education governance is shared between the Union and the States. The present study investigates the
implementation of NEP 2020 in undergraduate colleges affiliated with the University of Burdwan in West
Bengal. By focusing on institutional experiences at the micro level, the research seeks to understand how
national policy reforms interact with local administrative capacities, resource constraints, and institutional
cultures.
Rationale of the Study
While NEP 2020 outlines a comprehensive framework for educational transformation, its practical realization
depends on institutional readiness and the availability of necessary resources. Many colleges, particularly those
located in semi-urban and rural regions, operate within constrained financial and infrastructural environments.
The introduction of complex reforms—such as multidisciplinary curricula and digital credit systems—requires
not only conceptual acceptance but also operational capacity. The rationale for this study stems from the need
to examine whether institutions possess the necessary infrastructure, human resources, and administrative
mechanisms required for effective policy implementation. By analyzing the experiences of undergraduate
colleges in West Bengal, this study contributes to broader discussions about public policy execution in India’s
higher education sector.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The study of educational policy implementation has attracted considerable scholarly attention, particularly in
developing countries where systemic reforms often encounter institutional constraints. Scholars have argued
that educational policies frequently embody aspirational goals that are difficult to realize in practice due to
structural limitations. NEP 2020 has been widely recognized as a visionary policy document designed to
modernize India’s education system (MHRD, 2020). It emphasizes multidisciplinary education, skill
development, technological integration, and institutional autonomy. However, several scholars have
questioned the feasibility of implementing such reforms across a highly diverse and resource-constrained
educational landscape. Tilak (2019) critically examined the draft version of NEP and highlighted the financial
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3294
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
and institutional challenges associated with its implementation. Similarly, Kumari (2020) emphasized that
teacher education and faculty training represent critical bottlenecks in realizing the policy’s objectives. From a
theoretical perspective, the concept of policy implementation has been extensively discussed in public policy
literature. Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) argued that implementation is inherently complex and often
involves multiple actors, institutions, and decision-making layers. Sabatier and Mazmanian (1980) further
developed a framework for analyzing implementation processes, emphasizing the importance of institutional
capacity, policy clarity, and political support. In the Indian context, the federal structure of governance
introduces additional complexity. While the central government formulates policy frameworks, state
governments and universities are responsible for execution (Chauhan & Jaiswal, 2025). This multi-layered
governance arrangement often results in delays, inconsistencies, and uneven policy adoption. Empirical studies
conducted in West Bengal have also pointed to significant challenges in implementing NEP 2020. Banerjee
(2023) observed that many institutions lack adequate infrastructure and faculty resources to support
multidisciplinary education. Bag and Chattopadhyay (2024) further noted that teacher orientation programs
remain insufficient, leading to confusion among educators regarding curriculum implementation. Overall,
existing literature indicates that while NEP 2020 provides a progressive policy framework, its success depends
heavily on institutional readiness and governance coordination.
Research Gap
Despite the growing body of literature on NEP 2020, several gaps remain in the existing scholarship:
Limited Micro-Level Institutional Studies Most studies focus on national or state-level policy discussions
rather than institutional experiences.
Insufficient Examination of Implementation Gaps Few studies systematically analyze the divergence
between policy objectives and actual implementation outcomes.
Neglect of Governance Dynamics The role of administrative coordination between universities, colleges, and
government agencies remains underexplored.
Lack of Outcome-Based Evaluation There is limited empirical evidence assessing the practical consequences
of NEP implementation for students and faculty.
This study seeks to address these gaps by conducting a focused analysis of undergraduate colleges affiliated
with the University of The Country.
Objectives of the Study
The study is guided by the following objectives:
To assess the awareness and preparedness of undergraduate colleges regarding NEP 2020.
To examine the extent to which NEP reforms have been implemented at the institutional level.
To identify infrastructural, administrative, and pedagogical challenges in implementation.
To analyze the gap between policy objectives and institutional realities.
To evaluate the academic and administrative consequences of partial implementation.
To situate the findings within broader debates on educational governance and public policy.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3295
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
To mathematically conceptualize “Bridging Vision and Reality: Public Policy and the Implementation Gap in
India’s National Education Policy 2020”
1. Policy–Outcome Gap Model
Let
P = Intended policy outcomes (policy vision)
O = Observed institutional outcomes
G = Implementation gap
Then:
G = P − O
Interpretation:
G = 0 → Perfect policy implementation
G > 0 → Policy goals exceed actual outcomes
G < 0 → Institutional outcomes exceed expectations (rare)
2. Institutional Implementation Function
Policy outcomes depend on institutional capacity factors.
O = f(I, F, D, A)
Where:
I = Infrastructure capacity
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3296
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
F = Faculty availability and competence
D = Digital readiness
A = Administrative efficiency
Expanded as a weighted model:
O = αI + βF + γD + δA
Where
α + β + γ + δ = 1
These coefficients represent the relative importance of each factor in implementing NEP reforms.
3. Policy Implementation Efficiency Index
Implementation efficiency can be expressed as:
E = O/P
Where:
E = 1→ full realization of policy objectives
E < 1→ partial implementation
E > 1→ over-performance (rare)
4. Institutional Preparedness Index
Let institutional preparedness be a composite index:
IP = 0.25*[I + F + T + R]
Where:
I = Infrastructure score
F = Faculty strength
T = Teacher training readiness
R = Resource availability
5. Multidisciplinary Readiness Model
Since NEP promotes multidisciplinary learning:
M = 0.33*[S + C + L]
Where:
S = Number of academic streams offered
C = Cross-disciplinary courses
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3297
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
L = Laboratory / skill facilities
Higher M implies stronger multidisciplinary capacity.
6. Vocational Integration Model
NEP requires skill integration.
V = ηTv + θP + κE
Where:
Tv = Availability of vocational trainers
P = Industry partnerships
E = Employability training programs
7. Governance Coordination Equation
Policy implementation depends on coordination among governance actors.
Cg = f(Cu, Cs, U, Col)
Where:
Cu = Central government coordination
Cs = State government coordination
U = University administration
Col = College administration
Expanded:
Cg = λCu + μCs + νU + ξCol
8. Dynamic Implementation Model
Policy outcomes evolve over time:
O
t+1
= O
t
+ ϕ(IPt − Gt)
Where:
t = time period
IPt = institutional preparedness at time t
This captures gradual policy adjustment and institutional adaptation.
9. Student Benefit Function
The ultimate goal is student outcomes.
Bs = ρM + σV + τD
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3298
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Where:
Bs = student benefit index
M = multidisciplinary readiness
V = vocational integration
D = digital learning capacity
10. Composite NEP Implementation Index
Overall NEP implementation can be summarized as:
NEPI = ω1IP + ω2M + ω3V + ω4Cg
Where:
ω1 + ω2 + ω3 + ω4 = 1
This provides a quantitative framework to measure policy success.
Research Questions: Comparative Perspective: India and Sri Lanka
The study is designed to explore the practical realities of implementing higher education reforms in South
Asia, with particular reference to the National Education Policy 2020 in India and comparable higher
education reform initiatives in Sri Lanka. Both countries have undertaken significant reforms aimed at
modernizing their higher education systems by promoting multidisciplinary education, improving institutional
autonomy, and strengthening skill-oriented learning. However, translating policy frameworks into institutional
practice remains a complex process influenced by governance structures, resource availability and institutional
capacity. To systematically examine the relationship between policy design and institutional practice, the
following research questions guide the investigation.
Policy Interpretation and Institutional Understanding
How are higher education reforms such as NEP 2020 interpreted, understood, and communicated by college
administrators, faculty members, and other institutional stakeholders in India and Sri Lanka? This question
investigates the level of conceptual clarity and awareness regarding policy objectives among institutional
actors. It examines whether administrators and faculty possess a clear understanding of the reforms and
whether institutional communication mechanisms effectively disseminate policy information.
Institutional Response and Implementation Measures
What institutional measures have been undertaken by higher education institutions to implement policy
reforms?
In the Indian context, this includes:
Implementation of the Four-Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUGP)
Adoption of multidisciplinary curricula
Integration of vocational education
Operationalization of the Academic Bank of Credits (ABC)
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3299
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
In Sri Lanka, the question explores comparable reforms in curriculum modernization, interdisciplinary
programs, and university governance.
Infrastructure and Administrative Constraints
What infrastructural, technological, or administrative barriers hinder effective policy implementation in higher
education institutions across India and Sri Lanka?
The study investigates structural challenges such as:
Shortages of classrooms and laboratories
Limited digital infrastructure
Faculty shortages
Insufficient administrative support
Bureaucratic complexities within university governance systems
Understanding these barriers is crucial for identifying the factors that limit the successful execution of
educational reforms.
Consequences of Partial or Uneven Implementation
What academic, administrative, and pedagogical consequences emerge from incomplete or uneven
implementation of educational reforms?
The research evaluates whether partial implementation results in:
Academic inconsistencies across institutions
Increased administrative workload for faculty and administrators
Confusion among students regarding curriculum structures
Reduced effectiveness of multidisciplinary learning initiatives
Comparing experiences across institutions in India and Sri Lanka provides deeper insights into how policy
implementation gaps affect educational outcomes.
Governance and Policy Implementation Gap
How does the implementation gap reflect broader governance challenges in higher education systems in India
and Sri Lanka?
This question connects institutional experiences with larger public policy debates, particularly:
Federal governance dynamics in India
Centralized university governance structures in Sri Lanka
Coordination between governments, universities, and affiliated colleges
Institutional autonomy and accountability mechanisms
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3300
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Together, these research questions enable a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between policy
intention and institutional practice, which lies at the core of implementation studies in public policy and
educational governance.
METHODOLOGY
1. Study Area
The empirical investigation focuses on undergraduate colleges affiliated with the Universitys of India, with
comparative references to institutional developments in Sri Lanka. Represents a significant regional higher
education hub that supervises numerous affiliated colleges distributed across diverse socio-economic
environments. These include urban institutions located in district centers as well as rural colleges operating
under relatively limited infrastructural and financial conditions. This diversity provides an appropriate context
for examining variations in institutional capacity, governance practices, and policy implementation outcomes.
In comparative perspective, Sri Lanka’s university system—largely coordinated through the University
Grants Commission, India and Sri Lanka—provides an interesting contrast, as its universities operate under
a more centralized governance structure compared to India’s federal education system.
2. Research Design
The study adopts a mixed-methods research design, integrating both quantitative and qualitative research
approaches.
Mixed-methods research enables the combination of statistical analysis with interpretive inquiry, thereby
offering a more comprehensive understanding of complex institutional dynamics associated with policy
implementation. In the context of higher education reforms in India and Sri Lanka, quantitative data alone
cannot fully capture institutional experiences, while qualitative insights benefit from empirical statistical
support.
The mixed-methods approach therefore enables the study to:
Measure awareness and implementation levels across institutions quantitatively
Interpret institutional experiences and perceptions qualitatively
Triangulate findings from multiple sources to improve reliability and validity
This methodological framework enhances the analytical robustness of the study and strengthens the credibility
of its findings.
3. Sample Selection
Sampling Strategy
A stratified random sampling technique was used to ensure representation across different institutional
contexts. Stratified sampling divides the population into subgroups based on relevant characteristics—in this
case, geographic location (urban and rural institutions). This strategy ensures proportional representation of
different institutional environments and reduces sampling bias.
Sample Composition (Comparative Institutional Context: India and Sri Lanka)
The study includes approximately ten undergraduate colleges affiliated with universities in India, with a
comparative institutional perspective referencing universities in Sri Lanka. The primary empirical data for this
research were collected from undergraduate colleges affiliated with University of Burdwan in West Bengal,
India. These institutions represent a diverse academic environment encompassing both urban and rural settings.
In order to provide a broader South Asian perspective on higher education policy implementation, the
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3301
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
institutional context is also examined in relation to universities governed by the University Grants
Commission Sri Lanka, which oversees public universities in Sri Lanka. Although the empirical dataset
focuses primarily on Indian institutions, comparative references help situate the findings within the wider
regional higher education framework.
Institutional Distribution of Sample Colleges (India)
The study sample consists of approximately ten undergraduate colleges affiliated with universities in India.
Institutional Category
Number of Colleges
Urban Colleges
≈ 2
Semi-Urban Colleges
≈ 2
Rural Colleges
≈ 6
Total
≈ 10
Interpretation
The predominance of rural institutions in the sample reflects the structural characteristics of the affiliated
college system in India, where a significant proportion of higher education institutions are located outside
metropolitan areas. Rural colleges often operate under relatively constrained infrastructural and financial
conditions, which makes them particularly relevant for studying the implementation challenges associated with
major policy reforms such as the National Education Policy 2020.
These institutions frequently face challenges including:
Limited laboratory and classroom infrastructure
Shortage of permanent faculty members
Restricted access to digital learning technologies
Administrative constraints associated with centralized university examination systems
Consequently, the experiences of these colleges provide valuable insights into the practical realities of policy
implementation.
Comparative University Context (India and Sri Lanka)
To better understand the institutional environment in which policy reforms are implemented, it is useful to
consider the broader university systems in both countries.
Indicator
India
Sri Lanka
Governance Structure
Federal system (Central + State authorities)
Centralized national system
Regulatory Authority
University Grants Commission India
University Grants Commission Sri
Lanka
Public Universities
~110+
~17
Affiliated Colleges
~40,000+
Limited (most universities are
unitary)
Institutional Model
Large affiliated college system
Predominantly campus-based
universities
Institutional Implications
The higher education systems of India and Sri Lanka differ significantly in their organizational structures.
India operates a highly decentralized system in which universities supervise large networks of affiliated
colleges. This structure creates complex administrative hierarchies that often slow down the implementation of
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3302
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
new educational policies. In contrast, Sri Lanka’s university system is more centralized, with most
universities functioning as autonomous campus-based institutions under the coordination of the national
University Grants Commission. This centralized governance structure allows relatively faster policy
coordination but may limit institutional flexibility.
Institutional Characteristics of Sample Colleges
The selected colleges exhibit diverse institutional characteristics that influence their capacity to implement
policy reforms.
Institutional Feature
Observed Characteristics
Location
Urban, Semi-Urban, Rural
Student Population
1,000 – 5,000 students
Academic Streams
Arts, Commerce, Science
Governance
Affiliated college system
Digital Infrastructure
Uneven across institutions
Faculty Strength
Moderate to limited
These variations enable the study to analyze how institutional resources and governance contexts affect the
implementation of higher education reforms.
Significance of the Sample Composition
The selected sample offers several advantages for analyzing policy implementation dynamics:
1. Representation of Diverse Institutional Contexts
The inclusion of both urban and rural colleges allows the research to capture disparities in infrastructure,
faculty availability, and technological readiness.
2. Insight into Resource-Constrained Institutions
Since rural institutions form the majority of the sample, the research highlights challenges faced by colleges
operating under limited resources.
3. Comparative Policy Perspective
By situating the findings within the broader context of higher education systems in India and Sri Lanka, the
study contributes to comparative educational policy research in South Asia.
4. Relevance for Policy Implementation Studies
The sample reflects the realities of the affiliated college system, which is central to understanding how national
educational reforms are translated into institutional practice.
Analytical Value of the Sample
The sample composition enables the study to address key questions regarding:
Institutional preparedness for educational reforms
Disparities between urban and rural institutions
Administrative challenges within affiliated college systems
Policy implementation dynamics in developing higher education systems
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3303
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Through this empirical framework, the study provides valuable insights into how ambitious national policies
are interpreted and operationalized within diverse institutional environments.
4. Participants
To obtain a comprehensive institutional perspective, the study collected data from multiple stakeholder groups
involved in higher education governance and delivery.
Participants included:
College Principals Responsible for institutional leadership, administrative decision-making, and policy
implementation.
Faculty Members Directly engaged in curriculum delivery, academic planning, and student mentoring.
Administrative Staff Responsible for operational functions such as academic records, examination
management, and coordination of institutional processes.
Undergraduate Students Primary beneficiaries of educational reforms whose academic experiences provide
valuable insights into the practical impact of policy changes.
Including multiple stakeholder groups enables the research to capture a wide range of institutional perspectives
and experiences.
5. Data Collection Methods
To ensure methodological rigor and triangulation, the study employed multiple data collection methods.
Structured Questionnaires
Structured questionnaires were administered to faculty members and students to collect quantitative data
related to:
Awareness of NEP 2020 reforms
Institutional preparedness for implementation
Experiences with revised curricular frameworks
Perceived benefits and challenges associated with reforms
Standardized questionnaires allow systematic statistical analysis and comparison across institutions.
Semi-Structured Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with college principals and selected faculty members.
These interviews explored:
Institutional strategies for implementing policy reforms
Administrative challenges faced during implementation
Faculty perceptions regarding multidisciplinary education
Experiences with digital academic systems such as the Academic Bank of Credits
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3304
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
The semi-structured format allows participants to elaborate on their experiences while maintaining
comparability across interviews.
Institutional Observations
Field observations were conducted during visits to selected colleges to examine:
Physical infrastructure
Classroom and laboratory facilities
Availability of digital learning technologies
Administrative processes related to curriculum implementation
Observation data provide contextual insights that complement survey and interview findings.
Review of Institutional Documents
Institutional records and administrative documents were reviewed to verify reported implementation measures.
These included:
Curriculum frameworks
Academic calendars
Examination schedules
Institutional policy circulars
Document analysis strengthens the reliability of research findings by validating self-reported data.
Data Analysis
The collected data were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative analytical techniques.
Quantitative Analysis
Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistical methods, including:
Frequency distribution analysis
Percentage analysis
Comparative summaries across institutions
These statistical measures provide measurable indicators of awareness levels, institutional preparedness, and
implementation progress.
Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative data obtained from interviews and observations were analyzed using thematic analysis.
This process involved
Transcribing interview responses.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3305
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Identifying recurring themes and patterns.
Categorizing responses into major analytical themes such as infrastructure constraints, governance challenges,
and pedagogical adaptation.
Interpreting findings within the theoretical framework of public policy implementation.
Thematic analysis enables deeper interpretation of institutional experiences and perceptions.
Methodological Validation and Research Rigor
Several methodological safeguards were adopted to ensure the reliability and validity of the research findings.
Data Triangulation
Multiple data sources—questionnaires, interviews, observations, and document analysis—were used to cross-
verify findings.
Stratified Sampling
The sampling strategy ensures representation across diverse institutional contexts.
Mixed-Methods Integration
Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches enhances analytical depth.
Institutional Verification
Administrative records were examined to validate reported implementation measures.
Analytical Transparency
Clear documentation of data collection and analysis procedures ensures replicability.
Methodological Limitations
Despite the methodological rigor of the study, several limitations must be acknowledged.
The sample size is limited to ten colleges, which may restrict broader generalization.
The research focuses primarily on a single university system in India, with comparative references to Sri
Lanka.
Educational reforms such as NEP 2020 are still evolving, and their long-term institutional impacts may not yet
be fully observable.
Nevertheless, the study provides valuable insights into the micro-level dynamics of educational policy
implementation in South Asian higher education systems.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Institutional Preparedness: The findings reveal that most colleges were not adequately prepared for the rapid
implementation of NEP reforms. While administrators expressed support for the policy's vision, many
institutions lacked the resources necessary to operationalize the reforms. Infrastructure Constraints: Many
colleges reported shortages of classrooms, laboratories, and digital infrastructure. These deficiencies
significantly limit the ability to introduce multidisciplinary courses or technology-based learning
environments. Faculty Shortages and Training Gaps: The FYUGP structure requires greater faculty
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3306
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
specialization and interdisciplinary teaching. However, many institutions face persistent faculty shortages.
Additionally, training programs for teachers remain limited and sporadic. Limitations of Multidisciplinary
Education: The lack of diverse faculty expertise restricts the development of genuinely multidisciplinary
curricula. As a result, students often rely on self-learning or external coaching to fulfill course requirements.
Challenges in Academic Bank of Credits (ABC): The implementation of the digital credit system requires
advanced administrative and technological infrastructure. Many institutions reported difficulties in maintaining
digital records and coordinating credit transfers. Vocational Education Constraints: Although NEP emphasizes
skill development, colleges lack specialized training facilities. In many cases, vocational courses are delivered
through external providers using pre-recorded online content, limiting practical engagement. Examination
System Overload: The frequent examination schedule under the semester-based FYUGP system has created
administrative strain. Faculty members reported reduced teaching time due to continuous examination
responsibilities.
Policy Implications
The findings highlight several important implications for educational policy:
Institutional capacity must be strengthened before large-scale reforms are introduced.
Financial investment in infrastructure and faculty development is essential.
Greater coordination is required between central and state governments.
Policy implementation strategies should account for regional disparities in institutional resources.
CONCLUSION
NEP 2020 represents one of the most ambitious educational reform initiatives undertaken in India. Its vision of
a flexible, multidisciplinary, and technology-enabled higher education system reflects global trends in
educational transformation.
However, the findings of this study demonstrate that policy ambition alone is insufficient to guarantee
successful reform. The experience of undergraduate colleges affiliated with the University illustrates the
substantial challenges involved in translating policy vision into institutional practice.
Without adequate infrastructure, trained faculty, and administrative capacity, the transformative goals of NEP
2020 risk remaining aspiration rather than operational. Bridging the implementation gap therefore requires
sustained financial investment, institutional capacity-building, and collaborative governance across multiple
levels of the education system.
Ultimately, successful educational reform must balance visionary policymaking with pragmatic
implementation strategies that recognize the realities of institutional environments.
Declarations
Author Contributions: All authors made substantial, meaningful, and collaborative contributions to the
present study. This includes the initial conception and design of the research framework; development and
validation of the methodological approach; systematic analysis and interpretation of results; and drafting,
critical revision, and final preparation of the manuscript. Each author has actively participated throughout the
research process, has reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript, and agrees to be fully
accountable for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, ensuring that any questions related to the
content are appropriately investigated and resolved.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3307
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Funding: The authors declare that this research was conducted without the receipt of any financial support,
grants, or funding from public agencies, commercial entities, or not-for-profit organizations. The study was
carried out independently as part of the authors’ academic and scholarly activities.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests, professional
affiliations, personal relationships, or other circumstances that could be perceived as having influenced, or
potentially influenced, the research process, interpretation of findings, or conclusions reported in this
manuscript.
Data Availability: The data supporting the findings and analyses presented in this study were obtained
exclusively from publicly available and openly accessible sources. No proprietary, confidential, restricted, or
private datasets were used. All data sources have been appropriately acknowledged, and the study adheres to
principles of transparency and reproducibility.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval: Not applicable. The research reported in this manuscript did
not involve human participants, animal subjects, clinical trials, or experimental procedures that would require
review, approval, or oversight by an Institutional Review Board or Ethics Committee.
Informed Consent: Not applicable. This study did not involve human participants, human subjects research,
or the collection or use of identifiable personal, sensitive, or private data.
Ethics Statement: The authors affirm that the research presented in this manuscript has been conducted in full
compliance with established ethical standards of academic integrity, responsible research conduct, and
scholarly publication. The study does not raise any ethical, legal, or regulatory concerns and conforms to
internationally accepted norms and best practices in research and publication ethics.
AI Assistance Disclosure: The authors disclose that artificial intelligence–based tools, including ChatGPT,
were utilized exclusively for language enhancement, grammatical correction, stylistic refinement, and
formatting support. These tools were not used for generating scientific hypotheses, data analysis, interpretation
of results, or formulation of conclusions. The intellectual content, scientific accuracy, originality, and integrity
of the manuscript remain entirely the responsibility of the authors.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors express their sincere gratitude to their respective institutions for providing a conducive academic,
administrative, and research environment that supported the successful completion of this work. The authors
also acknowledge the valuable intellectual exchange, constructive feedback, and scholarly discussions
provided by colleagues, reviewers, and academic peers during various stages of the manuscript’s development.
Such interactions significantly contributed to improving the clarity, coherence, and academic rigor of the
study. Any remaining errors, omissions, or interpretations are solely the responsibility of the authors.
REFERENCES
1. Bag, A., & Chattopadhyay, K. N. (n.d.). Policy perspectives on teacher education.
2. Banerjee, M. (2023). Implementation of NEP 2020 curriculum.
3. Banerjee, S. D., & Mete, J. (2025). Impact of NEP-2020 curriculum implementation.
4. Chauhan, J. S., & Jaiswal, M. K. (2025). NEP 2020 and federalism in India.
5. Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying Public Policy.
6. Kumari, S. (2020). NEP 2020: Challenges to teacher education.
7. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation.
8. Sabatier, P. A., & Mazmanian, D. (1980). Policy implementation framework.
9. Tilak, J. B. G. (2019). Critique of the draft NEP 2019.
10. Ministry of Human Resource Development (2020). National Education Policy 2020.
11. Agarwal, P. (2009). Indian Higher Education: Envisioning the Future. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3308
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
12. Altbach, P. G., & Salmi, J. (2011). The Road to Academic Excellence: The Making of World-Class
Research Universities. Washington, DC: World Bank.
13. Aturupane, H. (2018). Higher education in Sri Lanka: Issues of access, quality, and relevance. Sri
Lanka Journal of Economic Research, 5(2), 3–19.
14. De Silva, S., & Samarasekera, D. (2015). Quality assurance in higher education in Sri Lanka. Higher
Education Policy, 28(4), 495–512.
15. Government of Sri Lanka. (2019). National Policy Framework on Higher Education and Technical
Training. Colombo: Ministry of Education.
16. Jayasuriya, S., & Malalgoda, K. (2014). University reforms and the knowledge economy in Sri Lanka.
South Asian Journal of Education Studies, 6(1), 25–42.
17. Kapur, D., & Mehta, P. B. (2007). Indian higher education reform: From half-baked socialism to half-
baked capitalism. Brookings India Working Paper.
18. Lakhtakia, A., Bhattacharya, P., & Krishnasamy, S. (2025). Recommendations of India’s National
Education Policy 2020 for higher education. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy.
19. Marginson, S., & Van der Wende, M. (2007). Globalisation and Higher Education. OECD Education
Working Papers.
20. Raj, S. B. (2024). Pathways to inclusive higher education: Lessons from India’s National Education
Policy 2020. Policy and Practice in Higher Education.
21. Tilak, J. B. G. (2015). Private higher education in India: Regulation, growth and policy challenges.
Economic and Political Weekly, 50(40), 32–38.
22. University Grants Commission (Sri Lanka). (2022). Annual Report on Higher Education Development.
Colombo: UGC.
23. Wickramasinghe, V., & Jayawardena, C. (2011). Graduate employability in Sri Lankan universities.
Education + Training, 53(5), 417–432.
24. World Bank. (2017). Sri Lanka: Higher Education Sector Development Programme. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
25. World Bank. (2018). Improving Higher Education in India: Institutional Autonomy and Governance.
Washington, DC.
26. Yellaswamy, C. (2025). NEP 2020 and higher education reforms in India: Achievements and
challenges. International Education and Research Journal.
27. Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2021). Implementation Strategy for National Education
Policy 2020. New Delhi.
28. Wickremesinghe, R. (2023). National education reform framework for universities in Sri Lanka.
Colombo: Government of Sri Lanka.
