NAAC 2025 reforms: the binary & MBGL guide for IQAC teams
The familiar A++ to C grade is being retired. In its place: a binary Accredited-or-not decision, and a maturity-level system still settling into place. Here is what has actually changed, how the assessment now works, and what an IQAC should be doing about it — with the parts that are still provisional flagged as such.
For most of two decades, an Indian institution's NAAC identity was a letter and a number: an A++, an A, a CGPA carried on every prospectus and banner. That era is closing. Following the recommendations of an expert committee on accreditation reform, the National Assessment and Accreditation Council has moved away from the graded letter system toward a binary model, with a maturity-level framework layered on top. For IQAC teams the change is significant and, in places, still in motion — which is exactly why it pays to separate what is settled from what is still being finalised. This is the companion overview to our shorter briefing on what binary accreditation and MBGL mean for your IQAC.
Why NAAC changed the model
The graded system had a well-documented problem: a single CGPA compressed a hugely complex institution into one number, incentivised score-optimisation over genuine improvement, and — in a series of well-publicised concerns about the integrity of the process — became vulnerable to gaming. The reform's stated intent is to make accreditation simpler, more credible and more developmental: a clear threshold of quality that an institution either meets or does not, followed by a path of continuous maturation rather than a one-off grade to defend. Whatever one's view of the details, that is the logic behind the two-part design below.
Binary accreditation, explained
The first and most concrete change is the move to a binary outcome. Instead of a spread of grades from A++ down to C, the assessment now yields one of two results: an institution is Accredited or Not Accredited. The point is to establish a clear, defensible quality threshold — a floor that certifies an institution meets the standards expected of it, without pretending to rank every institution on a single fine-grained scale. For an institution, the practical consequence is a change of mindset: the question is no longer "how do we push our CGPA up by a decimal?" but "do we clearly clear the bar, on evidence that will withstand verification?"
Maturity-Based Graded Levels
Because a simple pass/fail cannot capture the difference between a solid institution and a world-leading one, the binary decision is paired with Maturity-Based Graded Levels (MBGL). The intent is that accredited institutions are then placed on a scale of maturity — commonly described as Levels 1 to 5 — reflecting a journey from meeting national standards at the lower levels toward global excellence at the top. It is best understood as a developmental ladder: a way of recognising progress and pointing to the next stage, rather than a static rank.
Flagged as provisional. The MBGL framework's precise per-level benchmarks have been treated as indicative while NAAC finalises the associated manuals and portal. Institutions should plan around the direction of travel — evidence, maturity, verification — but confirm exact level definitions and thresholds against NAAC's own current documentation rather than any secondary summary, including this one.
The process: IIQA, SSR, DCF, DVV
The assessment machinery is where IQAC teams spend their time, and the acronyms matter. The IIQA (Institutional Information for Quality Assessment) is the eligibility gateway an institution clears to enter the cycle. The SSR (Self-Study Report) is the institution's substantive account of itself. Quantitative data flows through the DCF (Data Capturing Format), and — critically under the reformed, integrity-focused process — that data is then subjected to DVV (Data Validation and Verification), where the numbers an institution reports are cross-checked against the evidence it can actually produce. The single most important shift for an IQAC is that unverifiable claims are now a liability, not a shortcut: every figure entered should be traceable to a document that survives validation.
What it means for research output
Research sits close to the centre of this, and the reform sharpens rather than softens the expectation. As assessment leans harder on verifiable data and institutional maturity, the quality and integrity of research output matters more than raw counts. Publications in legitimate, genuinely indexed journals strengthen an institution's position; publications in predatory or discontinued venues are, increasingly, a risk — they inflate a number that verification can puncture, and they signal exactly the weakness the reform is designed to expose. This is where accreditation readiness and research integrity meet: an institution that has quietly tolerated predatory publishing has a data-integrity problem waiting to surface. Our guides to identifying predatory journals and publishing in genuinely indexed venues are, in that sense, accreditation tools too.
An IQAC readiness checklist
Translate the above into standing practice. One: build a live evidence repository, so every metric you will report is already backed by a dated, retrievable document. Two: audit your reported research — confirm that the journals your faculty publications sit in are legitimately indexed and active, and quietly address anything that is not, before a validator does. Three: treat the DCF as a data-integrity exercise, not a form-filling one: reconcile every number to its source. Four: track NAAC's current manuals directly for the evolving MBGL definitions rather than relying on last year's understanding. Five: make quality continuous — the maturity model rewards a genuine improvement trajectory, which cannot be assembled in the weeks before a submission.
What I tell IQAC teams
When I work with an IQAC preparing for the reformed process, the message I keep returning to is that this system rewards honesty and punishes decoration far more than the old one did. Under a CGPA, a weak metric could be diluted in an average; under binary accreditation with data verification, a single unverifiable claim is a live liability. So the work I steer teams toward is unglamorous and durable: get your evidence in order before you touch a form, make sure your reported research would survive an outsider checking every journal, and build quality as a habit rather than a submission-season sprint. The institutions that treat the reform as an invitation to become genuinely better, rather than a new format to game, are the ones it will serve well.
Preparing your institution for the reformed NAAC cycle — evidence architecture, research-data integrity, or the SSR itself? Institutional advisory is part of what we do. You can start right now with our free NAAC Readiness Scorecard.
Frequently asked questions
What replaced the NAAC A++ to C grades?
NAAC has moved away from the letter-grade and CGPA system (A++ to C) to a binary outcome — an institution is either Accredited or Not Accredited. A second stage, Maturity-Based Graded Levels, is designed to place accredited institutions on a scale of maturity levels rather than a single letter grade.
What is MBGL in NAAC accreditation?
MBGL stands for Maturity-Based Graded Levels. After the binary Accredited / Not Accredited decision, it is intended to assign accredited institutions to graded maturity levels (reported as Levels 1 to 5), reflecting increasing institutional maturity toward national and then global excellence. The precise per-level benchmarks have been treated as indicative while NAAC finalises its manuals.
What are IIQA, SSR, DCF and DVV in the NAAC process?
IIQA is the Institutional Information for Quality Assessment, the eligibility step; the SSR is the Self-Study Report an institution submits; the DCF is the Data Capturing Format through which quantitative data is provided; and DVV is the Data Validation and Verification stage, where submitted data is cross-checked against evidence. Accurate, evidence-backed data at the DCF and DVV stages is central to the reformed process.
Does research output still matter under the new NAAC system?
Yes. Research quality, publications, and the integrity of the data an institution reports remain central, and the shift toward maturity levels and data verification raises the premium on genuine, verifiable research output over volume. Institutions should ensure publications are in legitimate, indexed venues and that reported figures can withstand validation.
Sources and further reading: NAAC's own communications and manuals on the revised accreditation framework, the binary accreditation model and Maturity-Based Graded Levels (naac.gov.in); the report of the expert committee on accreditation reform that recommended the shift; and UGC communications on quality assurance. Because the MBGL benchmarks and manuals have been evolving, treat exact level definitions as provisional and confirm them against NAAC's current official documentation. Compiled with care; verify any decisive detail at the primary source on the day you act.