India’s pension architecture remains in transition from state-guaranteed payouts to market-linked retirement savings. In that long shift, the National Pension System, launched in 2004, has become the most consequential pillar. The government is now preparing another regulatory reset. The Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority, alongside the Strategic Asset Allocation and Risk Governance committee, has begun reworking how NPS invests, exits, and manages risk.
The intent is to modernise the investment framework, relax exit norms, and widen the investible universe. Officially, the objective is to strengthen retirement wealth creation, improve diversification, and bring NPS closer to global pension practice.
READ | High returns, low uptake: Can NPS crack the retirement puzzle?
Scale without comfort
NPS has expanded despite persistent scepticism. Its reformist design, combined with middle-class unease about market exposure, limited early enthusiasm. Yet scale has arrived. Assets have multiplied over the past decade, turning NPS into a major institutional investor across debt and equity markets. Subscriber growth has moved beyond government payrolls into corporate and individual accounts.
For the exchequer, the defined-contribution structure has mattered. Legacy pension commitments still absorb a significant share of public resources. NPS has capped future liabilities and insulated budgets from the open-ended risks embedded in defined-benefit promises. For long-term subscribers, returns have generally exceeded those of traditional guaranteed products over comparable horizons.
Adoption and its fragilities
NPS was designed to replace the fiscally unsustainable Old Pension Scheme for new central government employees. Its uptake since has been substantial. By October 2025, combined subscribers under NPS and the Atal Pension Yojana crossed nine crore. Assets under management exceeded ₹16 lakh crore, a sharp departure from the mid-2000s, when balances were marginal.
READ | OPS vs NPS: Reviving the old pension scheme could spell fiscal doom
Scale, however, has not resolved credibility. NPS continues to operate in a contested political environment, where pension design is periodically reopened and fiscal logic competes with electoral commitments. Reform, therefore, carries reputational as well as regulatory weight.
The exit constraint problem
The perception gap around NPS has centred on rigidity. Lock-ins until 60, narrow withdrawal windows, and a mandatory 40% annuitisation requirement made the scheme feel unyielding. Compulsory annuities—offering modest nominal payouts and weak inflation protection—undermined confidence among savers.
Recent PFRDA changes respond to this discomfort. Allowing full exit after 15 years, reducing compulsory annuitisation to 20%, easing partial withdrawals, and extending the investment age to 85 mark a structural shift. These adjustments reflect contemporary work patterns—career breaks, delayed retirement, and the need for liquidity buffers. On the exit side, NPS has become less doctrinaire.
Investment liberalisation and its costs
The sharper debate concerns investment freedom. PFRDA has permitted exposure to a broader set of instruments—REITs, InvITs, asset-backed securities, municipal bonds, alternative investment funds, and gold and silver ETFs—within standard asset categories.
The institutional logic is familiar. As pension assets grow, diversification becomes necessary. Large global pension funds routinely use alternatives to manage macroeconomic and geopolitical risk.
But retirement portfolios are not hedge funds. Instruments such as AIFs, AT-1 bonds, or complex securitised assets introduce liquidity, valuation, and credit risks that are difficult to assess even for sophisticated investors. Many remain restricted for retail participation elsewhere. Folding such products into mainstream NPS buckets narrows the margin between diversification and opacity. It also tests another, quieter advantage of NPS: its low-cost structure. As portfolios become more complex, fee discipline can no longer be assumed.
READ | Old pension scheme unsustainable, NPS makes sense for debt-laden states
Governance as the binding constraint
As NPS grows, it must invest like a professional institution. But its subscribers remain ordinary workers. Complexity that cannot be clearly bounded, disclosed, or monitored erodes trust. Governance, therefore, becomes the binding constraint—clear exposure limits, defensible valuation norms, and continuous risk oversight. In this context, the SAARG committee’s role is not procedural. It is central to preserving confidence in the system.
Post-retirement outcomes remain unsettled. Lower annuitisation improves flexibility but shifts longevity risk onto individuals. India’s annuity market remains shallow, with limited inflation-linked or phased-withdrawal options. Without credible decumulation products, retirees risk either exhausting savings prematurely or underspending out of caution.
NPS has delivered asset growth, competitive long-term returns, and fiscal relief. Exit reforms have made it more humane. Investment liberalisation will make it more powerful.
Whether it matures into a globally credible pension institution or strains under its own complexity will depend on regulatory discipline. For millions increasingly responsible for financing their own retirement, NPS will ultimately be judged not by scale, but by its ability to combine growth, safety, and trust—without pretending those trade-offs are costless.