Does the Central Assessment Committee mechanism strengthen standardisation or dilute the federal design of health-education regulation? Discuss.

The NCAHP Act, 2021 gives education, assessment, ethics and registration to four State-level Autonomous Boards, which each State Council sets up (Sec 29) [2]. The 2026 Regulations add a Central Assessment Committee (CAC) to do this work in States that have no functional State Council [1]. The CAC mainly strengthens standardisation. It does weaken the federal design, but only in a limited way that can be reversed.

How the CAC strengthens standardisation

• Fills a regulatory gap: before 2021, only seven States/UTs had any law regulating allied health professions [3]. Without a State Council there are no Boards, so no body can recognise institutions or register professionals. The CAC prevents this.
• Sets uniform national norms: the CAC works under NCAHP supervision with help from the NCAHP Secretariat. This fits the "One Nation One Curriculum" approach, under which the D.MRIT curriculum becomes mandatory from 2027–28 [1].
• Builds in transparency: assessment ratings must be published, and CAC members can be removed for conflict of interest, with a right to be heard [1].

How the CAC dilutes the federal design

• Health is a State subject (List II, Entry 6). The Act deliberately kept day-to-day regulation at the State level [2], but the CAC does that work under central supervision.
• Ignores Parliament's warnings: the Standing Committee said States must have a real role. It also asked for assessment rather than inspection and relaxed norms for rural areas [4]. Uniform central norms could fail institutions in backward districts, where PHCs most need technicians.
• Weakens the push on States: a central fallback lowers the cost of delay, so some States may never build their own councils.

Balance and way forward

• The CAC is a fallback, not a replacement. It applies only where councils are not functional, and it adds State/UT representation where needed [1].
• Allied health professions fall under the Concurrent List (List III, Entry 26), which gives Parliament the power to legislate here.
• MoHFW should publish each State's council status, and NCAHP should set a deadline for handing work back to each State.
• NCAHP should adopt the Committee's ideas of technology-based monitoring and skill mapping instead of relying only on site inspections [4].

Overall, the CAC protects standards and students where State capacity is weak, at some cost to State autonomy. If it stays temporary and includes States, it reflects cooperative federalism and supports SDG 3's target of a stronger health workforce.