NAAC 2025 reforms: the binary & MBGL guide for IQAC teams

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 is transitioning 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 published reform direction uses a binary basic-accreditation outcome rather than treating a fine-grained letter grade as the only public result. NAAC’s basic-accreditation portal is live, but the rule applying to a particular institution depends on its cycle, eligibility and the current official manual. IQAC teams should therefore prepare evidence for a threshold decision while confirming the exact process before submission.

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.

Evidence workflows: verify the current cycle

IIQA, SSR, DCF and DVV are familiar terms from NAAC’s graded accreditation workflows, but IQAC teams should not assume that every legacy sequence transfers unchanged to binary basic accreditation or future MBGL cycles. Confirm the current manual and portal instructions for the institution’s route. The durable requirement is evidence integrity: every submitted figure should be traceable to a dated source and reconciled with other official records.

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 a future NAAC cycle—evidence architecture, research-data integrity or framework transition? Institutional advisory is part of what we do. You can inventory legacy RAF evidence with our free Institutional Evidence Readiness diagnostic, which does not calculate an accreditation score.

Frequently asked questions

What replaced the NAAC A++ to C grades?

NAAC is implementing a transition from the letter-grade and CGPA model toward binary basic accreditation. A maturity-based framework is part of the published reform direction, but institutions should verify the cycle-specific manual and current portal before treating any secondary summary as operational instruction.

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.

Current official sources: the NAAC Basic Accreditation Portal, NAAC, and the Ministry of Education’s higher-education quality and accreditation reform material. Accessed 4 August 2026. The basic portal is live; MBGL definitions, transition arrangements and cycle-specific procedures must be confirmed against the current official manual before an institution acts.