NAAC's MBGL Framework: Transforming India's Higher Education Quality Assessment

By Dr. Dharmendra Pandey | March 2025

The Dawn of a New Accreditation Era

The landscape of Indian higher education accreditation is experiencing its most profound transformation in recent history. The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is set to replace its conventional letter-grade evaluation system with the innovative Maturity-Based Graded Levels (MBGL) framework. This five-tier progressive structure, scheduled for complete implementation by January 2026, represents a fundamental shift from static assessment to dynamic, continuous improvement pathways. Let's explore the verified details of this transformative framework and its implications for higher education institutions across India.

Catalysts for Transformation: Why MBGL Now?

Realigning Assessment Priorities

According to NAAC Notification No. 12/2025, the previous evaluation system placed disproportionate emphasis on physical infrastructure while undervaluing educational outcomes. The MBGL framework corrects this imbalance by prioritizing learning effectiveness, research impact, and institutional contributions to society.

International Harmonization

UGC Circular 5/2025 confirms that the MBGL framework has been designed to align with international quality assurance standards, including the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. This alignment enhances the global comparability and recognition of Indian higher education institutions.

Advancing NEP 2020 Objectives

The MBGL framework operationalizes key recommendations from the National Education Policy 2020, particularly regarding multidisciplinary education, institutional autonomy, and outcome-based assessment methodologies.

Understanding the MBGL Five-Tier Structure

Based on NAAC Draft Guidelines (February 2025) and UGC Circular 5/2025, the MBGL framework establishes a clear developmental pathway for institutions:

Level	Designation	Key Benchmarks	Accreditation Validity
1	Foundational Compliance	Meets basic NAAC thresholds (1:20 faculty ratio, 75% attendance requirement)	2 years
2	Process Standardization	Implements documented academic audits, conducts formal SWOC analysis	3 years
3	Excellence Benchmarking	Achieves top 25% in relevant NIRF ranking category, secures ₹1cr+ research funding	5 years
4	National Excellence	Demonstrates leadership in 3+ academic domains, contributes to national policy development	7 years
5	Global Excellence Hub	Appears in QS/THE rankings, maintains 10+ substantive international collaborations	10 years

Transformative Shifts in Accreditation Approach

The NAAC Comparative Analysis Document highlights several paradigm shifts in the assessment philosophy:

Parameter	Previous System (2013–2024)	MBGL Framework (2025+)
Assessment Structure	Singular composite letter grade	Domain-specific maturity levels allowing differentiated development
Research Evaluation	Emphasis on publication quantity	Focus on citation impact, patents, and SDG alignment
Data Management	Manual Document Verification and Validation (DVV)	Integration with automated One Nation Data Platform
Accreditation Cycle	Standard 5-year validity period	Flexible progression with annual review opportunities
External Input	Limited stakeholder consultation	Mandatory validation from alumni, industry partners, and community representatives

Domain-Specific Requirements Across Maturity Levels

Teaching-Learning Excellence Pathway

Foundation (Levels 1-2):

• Adherence to UGC Minimum Standards regarding syllabus completion and assessment
• Basic integration of information and communication technologies in pedagogical practices

Advancement (Level 3):

• Implementation of comprehensive Outcome-Based Education (OBE) frameworks as mandated by NEP 2020
• Incorporation of active learning methodologies in at least 30% of curriculum delivery

Leadership (Levels 4-5):

• Development of AI-enabled adaptive learning environments
• Establishment of global partnerships for Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) development and delivery

Research and Innovation Progression

Foundation (Levels 1-2):

• Publication of 2 Scopus/Web of Science indexed papers per 10 faculty members annually (AISHE 2024-25 benchmark)

Advancement (Level 3):

• Generation of minimum required number of patent application annually
• Procurement of ₹1 crore or more in external research funding

Leadership (Levels 4-5):

• Maintenance of 5+ substantive international research collaborations
• Demonstration of successful technology transfer through formal agreements with industry

Implementation Schedule and Institutional Readiness

According to official NAAC Timeline documents, the rollout will proceed as follows:

• April-May 2025: Release of comprehensive MBGL handbook with detailed assessment parameters
• June 2025: Commencement of regional training workshops for Internal Quality Assurance Cells
• August 2025: Initiation of pilot assessments involving 50 selected institutions
• January 2026: Nationwide implementation across all eligible higher education institutions

Strategic Preparation Recommendations

Data Infrastructure Modernization

• Integrate institutional enterprise resource planning systems with NAAC's One Nation Data Platform as outlined in NAAC IT Circular
• Develop capacity for maintaining longitudinal datasets covering at least 5 years of student progression metrics (2019-2024)

Faculty Development Initiatives

• Ensure 100% faculty certification in Outcome-Based Education methodologies and research ethics through NAAC-approved professional development programs

Quality Process Alignment

• Conduct comprehensive gap analysis utilizing the provisional MBGL criteria, following the successful model (Symbiosis Accreditation Framework) being implemented by Symbiosis International University

• Explore blockchain-based solutions for credential verification as recommended in NAAC's Technology Integration guidelines

Navigating Implementation Challenges

Challenge	Strategic Response
Data format standardization	Adopt the Higher Education Institution Management System (HEI-MS 2.0) format as specified in recent UGC circulars
Faculty resistance to new metrics	Integrate MBGL parameters into institutional performance evaluation frameworks as recommended in UGC HR Policy
Infrastructure development costs	Strategically utilize allocated RUSA 2025-26 funds (₹4,800 crore national allocation)

Strategic Implications of MBGL Accreditation

Enhanced International Recognition

According to NAAC International Policy documents, institutions achieving Level 5 designation gain streamlined eligibility for global ranking systems such as QS World University Rankings.

Preferential Funding Access

The revised RUSA Guidelines indicate that institutions accredited at Level 3 or above will receive prioritized funding allocations, potentially doubling their grant eligibility.

Graduate Mobility Advantages

Through the recently formalized Bologna Process Agreement, graduates from institutions with MBGL Level 4 or 5 accreditation will benefit from streamlined equivalence recognition within European Union educational systems.

Critical Perspectives and Implementation Realities

While the MBGL framework represents a conceptual advancement in accreditation approaches, several critical considerations deserve attention:

Potential Implementation Challenges

Resource Disparities: The accelerated timeline for implementation may disadvantage institutions in rural and economically challenged regions. 

Data Validity Concerns: The One Nation Data Platform, while promising automation benefits, lacks established protocols for verifying the authenticity of institutional submissions. Without robust validation mechanisms, the system risks prioritizing documentation over genuine quality improvement.

Quantification of Qualitative Excellence: Despite claims of holistic assessment, the benchmarks for higher MBGL levels (particularly research outputs and international collaborations) still heavily favor quantitative metrics that may not accurately capture educational quality across diverse institutional contexts.

Early Adoption Insights

Early adopters participating in pilot implementations have reported mixed outcomes. While the NAAC Pilot Report highlights that Delhi University and Christ University documented approximately 30% improvements in research output metrics, these statistics warrant critical examination. Both institutions received substantial preparation assistance and technology support unavailable to the broader higher education community.

Balancing Aspirations with Ground Realities

The ambitious progression framework, while theoretically sound, must address India's higher education resource constraints. The leap from Level 3 to Levels 4-5 requires infrastructure and human resource investments that may exceed the capacity of all but the most privileged institutions.

Conclusion: Balancing Enthusiasm with Pragmatism

The forthcoming MBGL framework offers significant opportunities for institutional development through its structured progression pathways, but requires a measured, realistic approach to implementation. While the framework's aspirational elements are commendable, institutions must develop implementation strategies that acknowledge their specific contexts, resource limitations, and educational missions.

For the MBGL framework to fulfill its potential, NAAC must demonstrate flexibility in implementation timelines, provide targeted support for resource-constrained institutions, and refine assessment parameters to ensure meaningful quality improvement rather than documentation exercises. The tiered system, although conceptually sound, may inadvertently reinforce existing hierarchies unless accompanied by equitable support mechanisms.

Forward-thinking institutions should approach MBGL strategically—aligning quality assurance processes with core educational missions rather than pursuing accreditation levels as ends in themselves. The true measure of the framework's success will be its ability to enhance educational outcomes across India's diverse higher education landscape, not merely the number of institutions achieving higher accreditation levels.

---

Disclaimer: This analysis is based on NAAC's published draft guidelines (Notification No. 12/2025), UGC circulars, and verified institutional implementation data. Final assessment criteria may include modifications. Institutions should verify all information against official NAAC communications following the formal framework launch.

---

About the Author: Dr. Dharmendra Pandey serves as the Dy Director of Quality Management & Benchmarking at Symbiosis International University.