NAAC Binary Accreditation.
What We Know So Far.

On February 10, 2025, NAAC announced the most significant change to its accreditation framework since the Revised Accreditation Framework (RAF) was introduced. The CGPA-based grading system — A++ through D — would be replaced with a two-tier model: Binary Accreditation (Accredited or Not Accredited) followed by optional Maturity-Based Graded Levels (MBGL, Levels 1 through 5).

That was over a year ago. The portal has not yet gone live. The exact metrics have not been finalised. The MBGL methodology is still being prepared by special committees. Institutions are in a holding pattern — knowing the direction but not the timeline.

This post compiles what we know from official sources, what remains unclear, and what institutions can reasonably do while waiting. We'll update this post as new information becomes available.

What has been confirmed

These points come from NAAC's official press release of February 10, 2025, the Dr. K. Radhakrishnan Committee report, and subsequent NAAC executive committee decisions:

The CGPA grading system is being phased out. The seven-point scale (A++ to D) will be replaced. Institutions currently holding RAF grades retain them until Binary and MBGL are fully operational.

Binary Accreditation is the new entry point. The outcome is Accredited or Not Accredited. There is no grade, no score, no ranking within the binary tier. An institution either meets the threshold or it doesn't.

MBGL is the optional second tier. After achieving Binary Accreditation, institutions can pursue Maturity-Based Graded Levels across five levels — from Level 1 (Basic) to Level 5 (Global Excellence). This is where differentiation between institutions will happen under the new framework.

10 attributes proposed to restructure the current 7 criteria. The Radhakrishnan Committee proposed reorganising the evaluation framework from the current 7 RAF criteria into 10 attributes, structured across three layers: Input (what the institution has), Process (how it operates), and Output (what it delivers). The proposed attributes include Curricular Aspects, Faculty Resources, Infrastructure, Financial Resources, Learning and Teaching, Extended Curricular Engagements, Governance and Administration, Student Outcomes, Research and Innovation Outcomes, and Sustainability Outcomes. However, the seven criteria remain the structural basis of evaluation under both frameworks as of now — the 10-attribute structure has not been formally operationalised.

AI-based assessment is expected to replace traditional physical peer team visits for Binary Accreditation. The Radhakrishnan Committee recommended digital-first evaluation using AI benchmarking, data validation against AISHE and NIRF databases, and stakeholder feedback surveys. Physical campus visits are expected to be eliminated for the binary tier, though online or video-based interactions may still be part of the process.

Binary accreditation validity is expected to be 3 years (compared to 5 years under RAF). Institutions would need to reapply more frequently.

A golden window for applications — from late May to mid-June — was proposed for Binary submissions.

What remains unclear

These are areas where the framework has been announced in principle but the operational details have not been published:

The exact number of metrics. Various drafts reference 68 or 59 metrics across the 10 attributes. The final count has not been confirmed. Until the metrics are published, institutions cannot know precisely what data points will be required.

The threshold for "Accredited." Under RAF, institutions needed a CGPA above 1.50 to avoid D grade. Under Binary, the pass/fail threshold — whether it's a percentage, a minimum score across attributes, or a different mechanism — has not been published.

How "Good," "Concern," and "Weak" classifications will work. The Radhakrishnan Committee proposed categorising metrics as Good, Concern, or Weak instead of assigning numerical scores. How many "Weak" metrics an institution can have before being classified as "Not Accredited" is not yet defined.

The MBGL assessment methodology. Special committees have been set up to develop it, but the methodology has not been published. It is expected that Levels 1-2 will be fully digital, Level 3 will be hybrid (digital plus sample physical verification), and Levels 4-5 will involve on-site validation.

The timeline. NAAC initially indicated an April-May 2025 launch. That date has passed. No revised launch date has been officially confirmed.

What stays the same regardless of the framework

This is the part that matters most for institutions preparing now. Regardless of whether an institution eventually applies under Binary, MBGL, or completes a remaining RAF cycle, several fundamentals remain unchanged:

Data accuracy is the foundation. Whether your data is evaluated by a peer team under RAF or by an AI system under Binary, the data needs to be accurate. Extended Profile consistency, DVV-ready evidence, and AISHE-aligned numbers are requirements under any framework.

IQAC functioning is non-negotiable. Binary doesn't eliminate the need for a functioning IQAC. The Radhakrishnan Committee explicitly includes Governance and Administration as one of the 10 attributes. IQAC minutes, ATRs, and quality improvement evidence will still matter — possibly more, since digital verification may scrutinise documentation more systematically than a time-constrained peer team visit.

Cross-portal consistency becomes more important, not less. The proposed "One Nation One Data" platform would cross-verify institutional claims against AISHE, NIRF, and other government databases automatically. Institutions that have been submitting different numbers to different portals will find that the AI-based system catches inconsistencies that a peer team might have missed. Getting your data consistent across portals is preparation that works under any framework.

Evidence needs to be digital. Binary is explicitly digital-first. Paper-based evidence repositories that many institutions maintain for peer team visits will need to be digitised. This is a significant operational shift that takes time — and it's preparation that's useful regardless of when the portal launches.

The institutions that will do well under Binary are the same institutions that do well under RAF: the ones with accurate data, functioning quality systems, and evidence that matches their claims. The framework changes. The fundamentals don't.

What institutions should not do

Don't wait passively. The most common response we see is institutions deciding to "wait and see" — pausing all accreditation preparation until the Binary framework is finalised. This is risky. When the portal does launch, there will likely be a narrow application window and a surge of applications. Institutions that haven't been building their evidence base will scramble.

Don't assume Binary means easier. A simpler outcome (Accredited / Not Accredited) does not mean a simpler process. The Radhakrishnan Committee's recommendations suggest more rigorous data verification, more automated checking, and more cross-portal validation than the current RAF process. The shift away from traditional peer team visits changes the preparation challenge: your data must speak for itself, with less opportunity to explain or contextualise it in person.

Don't invest in framework-specific preparation prematurely. Until the exact metrics are published, preparing for specific Binary metrics is guesswork. What's not guesswork: data accuracy, AISHE consistency, IQAC documentation, digital evidence readiness, and cross-portal alignment. These are framework-agnostic investments.

Where institutions stand today

The transition to Binary is confirmed in direction but uncertain in timeline. Institutions fall into three categories:

Institutions with valid RAF grades: Your grade remains valid until Binary and MBGL are operational. No action required on the accreditation front, but this is an ideal window to clean up your data, digitise your evidence, and align your AISHE/NIRF/SSR numbers — preparation that will serve you regardless of which framework you apply under next.

First-cycle institutions: You have the option to apply under RAF (if still available) or wait for Binary. The six mistakes first-cycle institutions typically make apply equally under both frameworks. The question is whether you want to start building your evidence base now or later — and the answer, given that Binary is expected to require 1-3 years of verifiable data, is now.

Institutions whose RAF grade has expired or is expiring: This is the most uncertain position. NAAC has indicated that fees already paid will be adjusted, and that institutions can choose between available frameworks. Check NAAC's official portal regularly for updates on transitional provisions specific to your situation.

The one thing we can say with confidence: the institutions that will transition smoothly are the ones that treated accreditation as a year-round data and evidence practice, not a periodic documentation project. That was true under RAF. It will be more true under Binary.

Edhitch

Accreditation & Ranking Intelligence · NAAC · NBA · NIRF · 12 Years · 100+ Institutions