National Credit Framework (NCrF) 2023: Implementation and Way Forward

Policy Update

Shivali Yadav

1. Background

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 called for removing the ‘hard separation’ between school, higher and vocational education. It proposed an Academic Bank of Credits (ABC) to facilitate the accumulation and mobility of credits (Ministry of Education, 2020). To operationalise this vision, the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship constituted a High-Level Committee in November 2021 to develop a common credit framework for general and vocational education (Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, 2021; University Grants Commission, 2023).

Following public consultation in 2022, the University Grants Commission notified the National Credit Framework (NCrF) on 10 April 2023, and it was subsequently adopted by NCVET and aligned with the revised National Skills Qualification Framework (NSQF) (University Grants Commission, 2023; National Council for Vocational Education and Training, 2023). NCrF provides a common credit architecture across school, higher and vocational education, with one credit corresponding to 30 notional learning hours and 40 credits to 1,200 learning hours in a year (University Grants Commission, 2023).

Importantly, NCrF is described as an ‘enabling framework’ that ‘may not be construed as a regulation,’ making implementation dependent on guidelines issued by individual regulators (University Grants Commission, 2023). Credits are operationalised through the Academic Bank of Credits and linked with the learner’s APAAR ID and DigiLocker account (University Grants Commission, 2023).

2. Functioning

NCrF integrates three underlying qualification frameworks: the National Higher Education Qualification Framework (NHEQF) for higher education, the National Skills Qualification Framework (NSQF) for vocational education, training and skilling, and the National School Education Qualification Framework (NSEQF) for school education (University Grants Commission, 2023). Each framework defines level descriptors and learning outcomes for its respective stream, while NCrF provides a common credit system for the assignment, accumulation, storage, transfer and redemption of credits. This allows learners to move across school, higher and vocational education while retaining credits earned through different forms of learning (University Grants Commission, 2023).

Credits may be earned through classroom learning, laboratory and project work, examinations, sports, community service, internships, apprenticeships and on-the-job training. NCrF also recognises experiential learning, including relevant work experience and proficiency levels acquired after a learner enters employment, provided that such learning is formally assessed (University Grants Commission, 2023).

How the Credit System Functions

Learning → Assessment → Credits → Academic Bank of Credits (ABC) → Accumulation / Transfer / Redemption

The Academic Bank of Credits (ABC) provides the mechanism through which earned credits can be digitally stored and used by learners. The broader credit architecture is intended to facilitate multiple entry and exit, mobility across educational and skilling pathways, and recognition of learning acquired through academic, vocational and experiential routes (University Grants Commission, 2023).

Institutional Operationalisation

Institutional operationalisation followed in stages. On 10 May 2023, the Department of Higher Education constituted a further High-Level Committee to oversee implementation. Three sub-committees were subsequently formed for school education; vocational education, training and skilling; and higher education. These committees met through mid-2023, including meetings on 7 and 9 August 2023, and incorporated feedback from the IITs before finalising Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). The UGC notified the SOPs in September 2024, roughly seventeen months after NCrF itself.

Separately, the IIT Council, at its 55th meeting in April 2023, decided that the IITs would adopt NCrF for credit earning, transfer and accumulation. At the school level, CBSE invited schools in April 2024 to join a pilot covering Classes 6, 9 and 11 for the 2024–25 academic year. Under the pilot, participating schools were required to organise subject curricula according to the prescribed annual notional learning hours, issue credit-bearing mark-sheets, and facilitate the storage of earned credits through the prescribed digital credit architecture.

Coordination challenges among regulators also surfaced during implementation. In August 2023, representatives of UGC, AICTE, NCVET, NETF, NAAC and MSDE met to discuss the flexibility and regulatory norms applicable to Skill Universities relative to general universities. This illustrates the broader implementation challenge of translating a common enabling framework into operational rules across multiple regulatory and institutional systems.

3. Performance

Government data allow the pace of NCrF’s rollout to be tracked against a clear implementation timeline:

Source: UGC, Report of the High-Level Committee on the National Credit Framework (April 2023); NCVET notifications; IIT Council decision (April 2023); UGC SOP notification (September 2024); CBSE circular on the NCrF pilot (April 2024).

On institutional uptake, the most recent government figures a Press Information Bureau factsheet on the Academic Bank of Credits and APAAR dated 4 July 2026 (data as on 2 July 2026)  record that 196 universities had formally adopted NCrF, alongside a wider circle of more than 700 universities and 6,600 colleges offering the associated Multiple Entry-Multiple Exit provisions and around 450 universities using the SWAYAM-linked credit-transfer route.

Measured against the 2,899 Higher Education Institutions registered on the Academic Bank of Credits platform as on the same date, the 196 universities with formal NCrF adoption amount to under 7 per cent of ABC-registered institutions, indicating that, more than three years after notification, whole-framework adoption remains considerably narrower than participation in individual NCrF-enabled provisions such as MEME or SWAYAM credit transfer.

4. Impact

NCrF’s principal structural impact has been to create, for the first time, a formal government-recognised credit mechanism spanning school education where none existed previously outside NIOS’s open-schooling credits alongside the pre-existing Choice Based Credit System in higher education and the NSQF/SAMVAY systems in vocational training (University Grants Commission, 2023; National Council for Vocational Education and Training, 2023).

By assigning common NCrF levels (1 to 8) across all three streams, the Framework establishes, at least on paper, defined credit-point equivalence that could let a learner move from a vocational qualification such as a two-year ITI craftsman certificate toward higher-education admission, or from academic education into recognised skilling pathways the structural bridge that NEP 2020 sought but that did not previously exist in a unified form (Ministry of Education, 2020; University Grants Commission, 2023; National Council for Vocational Education and Training, 2023).

The decision of the IIT Council to adopt NCrF lent early credibility to the Framework among India’s most selective and autonomous technical institutions, and CBSE’s 2024-25 pilot provided the first operational test of credit-based assessment and ABC deposit at the school level (Council of Indian Institutes of Technology, 2023; Central Board of Secondary Education, 2024).

Observed Implementation and Measured Impact

Measured impact so far, however, remains concentrated at the level of policy architecture and early piloting rather than system-wide practice. Government figures put formal NCrF adoption at 196 universities as of July 2026, a small fraction of India’s higher education landscape and of the 2,899 institutions already registered with the associated Academic Bank of Credits (Press Information Bureau, 2026).

The school-level leg of the Framework, arguably its most novel feature since no prior national credit mechanism existed for regular schooling, remains confined to a CBSE pilot in three grades rather than a nationally scaled rollout, more than three years after NCrF’s notification (Central Board of Secondary Education, 2024; University Grants Commission, 2023). The near seventeen-month gap between NCrF’s own notification (April 2023) and the SOPs needed to operationalise it (September 2024) also meant that, for over a year, institutions had a framework of principles without the detailed procedural guidance required to apply it (University Grants Commission, 2023, 2024).

5. Emerging Issues: 

• Issue 1: Non-Regulatory, Enabling Character of NCrF

 The High-Level Committee’s own report describes NCrF as an enabling framework that “may not be construed as a regulation,” leaving actual implementation dependent on each regulator, including UGC, AICTE, NCVET, CBSE and NIOS, separately notifying appropriate guidelines within its broad framework (University Grants Commission, 2023). While this structure allows flexibility across different education and skilling systems, it also makes consistent implementation dependent on regulatory and institutional follow-through.

• Issue 2: Long Gap Between Notification and Operational SOPs

Nearly seventeen months elapsed between NCrF’s notification in April 2023 and the issuance of the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in 2024. During this period, institutions had access to the broad principles and credit architecture of NCrF but limited procedural guidance for translating them into institutional practice (University Grants Commission, 2023, 2024).

• Issue 3: Limited Institutional Adoption Relative to the ABC Base

As of 2026, NCrF had been adopted by 196 universities, while 2,899 Higher Education Institutions were registered on the Academic Bank of Credits (Press Information Bureau, 2026). Although these figures represent different institutional categories and should therefore not be treated as a strictly like-for-like adoption rate, they indicate that formal NCrF adoption remains considerably narrower than participation in the broader ABC infrastructure.

• Issue 4: School-Level Component Still at Pilot Stage

CBSE’s NCrF pilot, launched for the 2024–25 academic year, covers Classes 6, 9 and 11 in participating CBSE-affiliated schools (Central Board of Secondary Education, 2024). Consequently, the school education component of the Framework remains at an experimental stage rather than operating at national scale, particularly across the wider ecosystem of State Education Boards.

• Issue 5: Inter-Regulator Coordination Gaps

A dedicated meeting involving the Chairpersons of UGC, AICTE and NCVET, along with the Chairman of NETF and NAAC and the Senior Economic Advisor of MSDE, was held on 2 August 2023 to discuss and reconcile provisions and parameters applicable to Skill Universities and general universities (University Grants Commission, 2024). The need for such coordination illustrates the institutional challenge of applying a common credit framework across education and skilling systems governed by different regulatory structures.

• Issue 6: Administrative Complexity of the Credit Equivalence Architecture

NCrF’s credit-equivalence architecture spans multiple credit levels and accommodates diverse vocational pathways, including Short Term Training, Long Term Training, the National Trade Certificate, National Apprenticeship Certificate and Craft Instructor Training Scheme, with different learning-hour and qualification requirements (University Grants Commission, 2023; National Council for Vocational Education and Training, 2023). While this flexibility enables the recognition of diverse forms of learning, the complexity of the architecture may pose challenges for consistent interpretation and application across institutions and State administrations with varying levels of administrative capacity.

• Issue 7: Limited Visibility of Dedicated Implementation Expenditure

 NCrF operates as a cross-cutting credit and administrative framework involving multiple institutions and regulatory bodies rather than as a conventional standalone scheme. In the publicly available budget documents reviewed, NCrF-specific implementation expenditure is not readily identifiable as a separate budget line (Ministry of Education, 2023–24). Consequently, expenditure associated specifically with NCrF implementation cannot easily be tracked independently from broader allocations to the Department of Higher Education, UGC and related institutional and digital initiatives. This limits public visibility into the resources specifically directed towards implementation, but does not in itself establish that implementation funding is inadequate.

6. Way Forward : 

With the foundational architecture in place and the first school-level pilot underway, NCrF’s next phase depends on converting a well-specified framework into broad-based institutional practice. Five priorities can strengthen this transition.

• Regulatory coordination: Institute periodic joint reporting and monitoring across regulators under NCrF’s High-Level Committee, since implementation of an enabling framework depends heavily on follow-through by individual regulatory and institutional bodies (University Grants Commission, 2023). A standing inter-regulatory coordination mechanism can also help address ongoing differences in regulatory norms, rather than relying on ad hoc meetings, particularly in areas where academic and skills-based education systems intersect.
• Transparent adoption monitoring: Publish institution-wise NCrF adoption data alongside existing Academic Bank of Credits (ABC) and Multiple Entry and Multiple Exit (MEME) participation statistics to track implementation and identify gaps in institutional uptake. Demonstrated NCrF implementation could also be considered for recognition within relevant quality-assurance mechanisms, while preserving the framework’s enabling character rather than converting it into a mandatory regulatory requirement (University Grants Commission, 2023).
• School-pilot evaluation and phased expansion: Expedite evaluation of the CBSE pilot covering Classes 6, 9 and 11 and use its findings to plan a phased expansion of school-level creditisation in coordination with State Education Boards. Such expansion should draw on evidence from the pilot before wider implementation, particularly regarding curriculum restructuring, assessment, credit calculation and institutional readiness.
• Institutional capacity-building and digital tools: Develop simplified, institution-facing credit calculators and dedicated training for registrars, examination units and other implementing personnel, building on the existing NCrF framework and operational guidance. These measures can help institutions apply credit-equivalence rules more consistently across academic, vocational and experiential learning pathways (University Grants Commission, 2023).
• Financial transparency: Disclose NCrF- and ABC-related implementation expenditure within the Ministry of Education’s budget documents, including the Detailed Demand for Grants, to improve fiscal visibility and enable assessment of the resources committed to implementation.

Advanced along these lines, NCrF can move from being a well-designed enabling architecture toward the lived, system-wide credit mobility envisioned by NEP 2020 (Ministry of Education, 2020; University Grants Commission, 2023). By facilitating flexible learning pathways, recognition of learning across academic and vocational streams, and opportunities for lifelong learning, its objectives are also consistent with Sustainable Development Goal 4 on inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities, as well as the broader Viksit Bharat 2047 vision of building a skilled and adaptable workforce (United Nations, 2015; Government of India, 2024).

References

• Central Board of Secondary Education. (2024, April). Circular inviting schools for the National Credit Framework pilot project, academic year 2024–25. Government of India.
• Indian Institutes of Technology Council. (2023, April 19). Decision on adoption of the National Credit Framework, 
• Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Implementation of NEP: Learner-centric education. Government of India. https://www.education.gov.in
• Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship. (2021, November 18). Order No. Coord-11/01/2021-P&C constituting the High-Level Committee on the National Credit Accumulation and Transfer Framework. Government of India.
• National Council for Vocational Education and Training. (2023, May 12). Adoption of the National Credit Framework. Government of India. https://www.ncvet.gov.in
• National Council for Vocational Education and Training. (2023, June 6). Notification of the revised National Skills Qualification Framework. Government of India. https://www.ncvet.gov.in
• Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Education. (2026, July 4). Academic Bank of Credits and APAAR: Factsheet. Government of India. https://www.pib.gov.in/FactsheetDetails.aspx?id=150693
• University Grants Commission. (2023, April). Report of the High-Level Committee on the National Credit Framework (NCrF). Government of India. https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/9028476_Report-of-National-Credit-Framework.pdf
• University Grants Commission. (2024, September). Standard operating procedures for operationalization of the National Credit Framework (NCrF) in higher education, vocational education, training and skilling (VETS), and school education. Government of India.

About the Contributor

Shivali Yadav is pursuing an M.A. in Liberal Studies at Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute, Prayagraj, and is an IMPRI intern. Her work focuses on gender, education, youth, and public policy, with interests in educational equity and qualitative research. 

Acknowledgement 

The author sincerely thanks the reviewers and editorial team for their valuable comments, constructive suggestions, and guidance. Their feedback helped improve the clarity, structure, and analytical depth of this policy update.

Reviewers: Kavin Adithya CB, Nayanshi Jain

Disclaimer: All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.

Read more at IMPRI:

The Pakistan-Saudi Defence Pact and India’s Gulf Diplomacy

Protecting the Diaspora: Evacuation Planning for a Volatile Gulf