Background and Context
Pradhan Mantri Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (PM-USHA) is a centrally sponsored scheme for state higher education institutions. The June 2023 guidelines describe it as the new form of the Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA). RUSA's first phase began in 2013 and the second in 2018. The scheme covers government and government-aided institutions of states and union territories. Its aim is not merely to construct buildings but to improve quality, institutional governance, accreditation, research and equal opportunities.
Why in the News
On 27 July 2026 (Monday), Minister of State for Education Jayant Chaudhary answered Lok Sabha Unstarred Question 1281. Its Annexure-V gives total funds approved and the central share since the launch of RUSA/PM-USHA; Annexure-VI gives central releases from 2021-22 to 2025-26. The periods of these two tables are not the same. So dividing one by the other to derive a percentage of the scheme's spending or use would be wrong. This article is based on the dated information of that answer and the June 2023 guidelines; it does not confirm the position after July.
Main Facts and Figures
| Approval since launch, Annexure-V | Printed total: Rs 21,926.00 crore; of this the central share is Rs 14,483.75 crore. As per the footnote, PM-USHA's 1% central MMER, Rs 80.30 crore, is not included in this. This is not approval for only the last five years. |
|---|---|
| Central releases, Annexure-VI | Printed yearly totals (Rs crore): 2021-22: 249.15; 2022-23: 359.52; 2023-24: 181.07; 2024-25: 350.85; 2025-26: 864.26. The table's title is PM-USHA; do not treat the early years as the year the new PM-USHA started. |
| Examples from 2025-26 | Uttar Pradesh Rs 98.99 crore, Maharashtra Rs 92.49 crore and Assam Rs 64.34 crore in central releases. These are entries for that year, not institutions' spending or a five-year sum. |
| Tamil Nadu: separate RUSA information | The answer's text mentions 100 projects, total approval of Rs 873.95 crore, central share of Rs 527.83 crore and, of that, Rs 453.10 crore released. 11 projects of Rs 106 crore were approved in four districts, of which 10 are stated to be complete. |
How Does the Scheme Work?
Areas of support: the June 2023 guidelines include grants for Multidisciplinary Education and Research Universities (MERU), strengthening universities, strengthening colleges, new model degree colleges, gender inclusion and equity initiatives, and Management, Monitoring, Evaluation and Research (MMER). These should not be understood as achievements already completed by July 2026.
Selection and accountability: under the guidelines, the state first signs a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Ministry of Education, then institutions and districts are prioritised at the state level and proposals are evaluated. The Project Approval Board (PAB) examines and approves proposals. There is a project-monitoring arrangement at the institutional level. Challenge-method selection for limited units does not mean every application automatically gets funds.
Conditions for release: chapter XII of the guidelines ties central releases to fulfilling required documents and conditions, the state's timely contribution of its share, financial norms and expected outputs and outcomes. These are general rules. That this was the reason for a low amount in any particular state is not established by this answer.
Why Are Approval, Release and Results Different?
Different stages, different measures: an approval states the financial size of an approved proposal. A release is the outgo of funds from the Centre. How much the institution spent, when construction was completed and what benefit reached students is a further inquiry. Calling the approved amount itself "spending" removes these steps of accountability.
The limit of the Tamil Nadu example: the answer says Tamil Nadu has not signed an MoU under PM-USHA. It also mentions earlier approval and releases under RUSA. The two should be read together. Old RUSA money is not proof of a new PM-USHA MoU; nor should the absence of an MoU be made proof that all earlier financial flows have stopped. The four districts are Karur, Dindigul, Pudukkottai and Tiruchirappalli.
Policy significance: our analysis: linking resource distribution to institutional reform can open a path of quality improvement, but evaluating it needs more than a table of funds. Separate evidence is needed on accreditation, access for deprived groups, project completion and outcomes of learning and research.
Checking the Tables and Their Limits
A difference in the approval total: in our decimal calculation, the 34 rows of Annexure-V total Rs 21,926.04 crore and the central share Rs 14,483.77 crore. The printed totals are Rs 21,926.00 and Rs 14,483.75 crore respectively: differences of +Rs 0.04 and +Rs 0.02 crore. The answer does not give a reason; it has not been assumed to be rounding and "corrected".
Symbols and blank cells in releases: Annexure-VI has many cells with "-", some with "–" and some blank. These were not treated as zero. Adding only the numeric entries gives a 2021-22 sum of Rs 249.149 crore, while the printed total is Rs 249.15 crore; Uttarakhand's entry is 30.459. The numeric sums of the remaining four years match the printed totals exactly. The answer does not separately explain the meaning of blank or symbol cells.
Which ratio should be avoided?: a use rate should not be derived by making Annexure-V's central approvals since launch the base for Annexure-VI's five years of releases. The periods differ, and a release is not use. Nor has the general funding ratio of states been applied as-is to every row of the combined historical RUSA/PM-USHA table.
Way Forward
In examining the scheme, the accounts of the same project and the same period should be joined: approval, outgo of the central and state shares, the institution's utilisation certificate, completion of work and educational outcomes. To explain state-wise differences, the relevant approval orders, instalment conditions and pending documents would have to be seen. This is a suggestion for evaluation, not a new government announcement made in the answer.
The Conceptual Difference
Approved amount ≠ amount released by the Centre ≠ the institution's spending ≠ educational outcome. RUSA/PM-USHA's approvals since launch and outgoes from 2021-22 to 2025-26 have different time bases.
Mains Viewpoint
GS-II: education and the social sector; centrally sponsored schemes; cooperative federalism and financial accountability.
Answer Outline
Introduction: The relationship between RUSA and PM-USHA.
Main Body: The aims of quality, accreditation and access; selection and the state's role; the differences between approval, release, spending and outcomes; period and source limitations; project-wise evaluation.
Conclusion: Link the goals of quality and equal access to approval, release, utilisation, completion and educational outcomes for the same project. Do not use amounts from different periods to make definite claims about progress or the reasons for state-wise differences.
Sources
- Lok Sabha Unstarred Question 1281, 27 July 2026: text of the answer and Annexures V-VI
- Ministry of Education: PM-USHA guidelines, June 2023; chapters I-V, XII-XIII
Two primary government sources. The passages used were read from the original PDFs; the full page images of Annexures V-VI and the numeric sums were checked. The June 2023 copy of the guidelines is for the historical framework; later amendments or the position after July 2026 are not verified here.
Remember: PM USHA's evaluation should go beyond approval of funds to institutional quality and equal access. Do not derive a use rate by mixing different time bases and different financial stages.
Download This Article: PDF