Accreditation7 min read
NAAC is moving to binary accreditation: what to do while you wait
NAAC has proposed a yes-or-no accreditation first, with graded levels after it. It has not launched yet. Until it does, the current system applies, and many accreditations have been extended.
Checked against official notices on .
For more than twenty years, a NAAC result has been a CGPA and a letter grade. Colleges plan around that number, and many put "A++" on the gate.
That is set to change, but it has not changed yet. In a public notice of 22 April 2026, NAAC says it "has proposed to launch" Basic (Binary) Accreditation, followed by Maturity-Based Graded Levels (MBGL). In the binary step, an institution is accredited or it is not. The graded levels come after that.
The short versionNothing new has launched. The current framework still applies. Check whether your accreditation has been extended, keep your IQAC working, and keep your evidence in order. When NAAC releases its manuals, they are the only authority on the new criteria.
What NAAC has said so far
- The plan. Basic (Binary) Accreditation first, then MBGL. NAAC says this follows the recommendations of the Dr Radhakrishnan Committee.
- The extension. If your accreditation under the current Revised Accreditation Framework (RAF) expired, or will expire, between 27 January 2024 and the launch of MBGL, it is extended. The extension runs for up to six months after MBGL launches.
- The choice. Those institutions may also opt for Basic Accreditation once it launches.
- In the meantime. NAAC asks them to keep maintaining and improving quality through their IQAC.
- A warning. In September 2025, NAAC warned against unauthorised consultancy, seminars and workshops on the new framework. It also said its binary and MBGL manuals are its own intellectual property.
Left: the grades NAAC gives today under the Revised Accreditation Framework. Right: the proposal as the Radhakrishnan Committee report described it in 2023. NAAC's own manuals will set the actual criteria and outcomes, so check naac.gov.in before you rely on any detail.
NAAC has not published the new manuals, so nobody outside NAAC can tell you the new criteria. But a yes-or-no decision has some likely effects that are worth thinking about now.
1. A strong area may not cover a weak one
Under the CGPA, scores across the seven criteria are weighted and added up. A strong criterion can lift a weaker one.
A yes-or-no decision may not work that way. Until the manual is out, assume every area needs evidence of its own.
2. "Accredited" on its own may say less in admissions
Today a high grade helps a college stand out. If the first step is a simple yes or no, many colleges will carry the same word. The graded levels are meant to show more, but they come later.
If your admissions material leans on your grade, keep in mind that the message may need to change.
3. Evidence quality matters more than evidence volume
This is true under any framework, and it is the one to act on now. NAAC already checks submitted data against evidence at the DVV stage. What counts is whether each claim has a document behind it. Twenty pages that prove the point are worth more than a thousand that do not.
Where the real work is: the SSR
Today that report is the Self-Study Report (SSR). Almost every institution we speak to describes the same cycle. The SSR is due. A small group rebuilds three to five years of activity from folders, inboxes, WhatsApp groups and people's memories. It takes months, it is exhausting, and the report is only as good as what survived.
Same institution, same activity, same criteria. The difference is whether the evidence was tagged when it was created or hunted for afterwards.
Rebuilding at the last minute has a weak spot. When you find out late that a criterion has no supporting evidence, under the CGPA you lose some marks. Under a yes-or-no decision, the cost could be higher.
What "continuous evidence" means in practice
It is less ambitious than it sounds. When something happens that will matter to accreditation, somebody notes it once, at the time, against the criterion it supports.
- A guest lecture is noted with the date, the speaker, the attendance and the photograph — not just announced on a noticeboard.
- A publication is entered against the faculty member when it appears, with the DOI, rather than collected in a survey two years later.
- Student progression — jobs, higher study, entrepreneurship — is noted as each outcome is known, not surveyed later when half the batch has stopped answering.
- Outcome attainment is worked out from assessment data you already hold, rather than reverse-engineered to look defensible.
That last one deserves saying plainly. CO/PO attainment produced at report time, from numbers chosen to give a reasonable answer, is not evidence. An experienced peer team can tell the difference.
The question that separates the two approaches is simple: can you show the document behind any number in your report, on request, without asking anyone to remember anything?
What to do while you wait
- Treat NAAC as the only authority. Read its public notices on naac.gov.in, and use its manuals when they are released. Every other summary, including this article, is second-hand.
- Check your accreditation dates. If your accreditation expired or expires between 27 January 2024 and the launch of MBGL, it is extended for up to six months after that launch. Keep a copy of the notice with your IQAC files.
- Keep the IQAC working. NAAC has asked institutions to keep maintaining and improving quality through the IQAC. Do not pause because a new framework is coming.
- Audit for the gaps, not the score. Go criterion by criterion under the current framework and ask one question: do we hold evidence for this? The ones where the answer is no are your real workload, whatever the new criteria say.
- Fix progression data first. It is the hardest thing to rebuild, because it depends on people who have already left. Everything else is still inside the institution somewhere.
If you do one thingPick the criterion you would least like to be asked about, and find out today whether the evidence exists. Not whether you could write something — whether the document is there. That answer tells you how much work the next cycle really is.
How iVake handles it
Accreditation evidence is captured as the year happens rather than assembled at the end. Events, publications, seminars and student outcomes are recorded against criteria when they occur, with the source record attached. Outcome attainment is computed from the assessment data already in the system, so the figure in the report and the figure in the records are the same number — and each one links back to what produced it.
When a report is due, the work is reviewing and writing rather than hunting. That is the whole difference.
Sources
- NAAC public notice on Basic (Binary) Accreditation, MBGL and the validity extension, 22 April 2026 (PDF)
- NAAC public notice warning against unauthorised advice on the new framework, 2 September 2025 (PDF)
- NAAC FAQs on choosing between frameworks (PDF)
- Ministry of Education, Dr Radhakrishnan Committee report on accreditation reforms, November 2023 (PDF)
- NAAC, assessment and accreditation under the current framework, including the grade table
See iVake running on your own data
Share your fee structure and programmes before the call, or sample data with student names removed. We set them up, so you see your own institution on screen rather than a demo account.
- 45 minutes, your data. Not a generic tour of features.
- Migration mapped on the call. We show exactly where your current records land.
- A written rollout plan within two working days, with phases, owners and dates.
- No pressure to switch everything at once. Most schools and colleges start with one department or one intake.