A blow to Panjab University's autonomy

FOR over a century, Panjab University has stood as a beacon of higher learning. Its Senate and Syndicate, established under the PU Act of 1947, embodied a model of collegial governance that safeguarded both autonomy and accountability. That legacy now faces a challenge.

The Gazette notification redefining the constitution of the Senate and Syndicate marks a break from the university's model of self-governance. The official rationale is that these bodies had become arenas of factionalism and patronage, where elections were driven less by vision than influence. Reform was deemed essential. Yet, what has emerged is less reform than reconfiguration — one that risks converting an autonomous institution into a bureaucratic extension of the state.

The reconstituted Senate has a smaller membership and an altered composition. While a measure of election remains, a large proportion of members will be nominated by the Chancellor or drawn ex officio from government or administrative offices. This shift from representation to nomination weakens the democratic principle. The introduction of political representatives and civil servants tilts the scales toward hierarchy rather than deliberation. Professors, associate professors and principals, who are the main electorate, operate under the VC's authority. Structural dependence constrains their freedom to dissent. It is difficult to challenge authority when authority determines one's professional future.

The Syndicate, the university's executive body, similarly reflects bureaucratic dominance. Chaired by the VC, it includes government secretaries and directors alongside others nominated by the VC on the basis of seniority. In principle, seniority rewards experience; in practice, it often rewards compliance. The result is a concentration of authority that blurs the line between administrative streamlining and academic control.

The question underlying this crisis is fundamental: what is a university meant to be? Traditionally, it is a self-governing community of scholars devoted to reasoned dialogue and the pursuit of truth — not an arm of the state nor a corporation. The new structure shifts the balance from autonomy toward control.

For all its imperfections, the earlier system sustained PU through Partition, political transitions and social change. It allowed a balance between state oversight and institutional independence. Under that framework, the PU built its reputation as a leading centre of learning, producing scholars who embodied both intellectual rigour and public responsibility. To abandon that legacy now would be to erase one of the last bastions of academic self-rule in the country.

Much will now depend on the VC’s temperament and the Chancellor’s commitment. If they approach their offices with respect for dialogue, the new structure might still function constructively. But if they yield to bureaucratic expediency, the democratic character will erode swiftly.

The Ministry of Higher Education's directive raises constitutional questions. What appears a routine administrative measure is, in truth, an encroachment on university autonomy and a troubling instance of centralisation. The Chancellor's powers under the 1947 Act are largely ceremonial; direct intervention in internal governance stretches constitutional propriety to its limits.

Panjab University is not a central institution but a creation of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha under the Panjab University Act of 1947. Any change to its governance requires the legislature's consent. By unilaterally altering its structure through ministerial notification, the Centre not only bypasses that requirement but also undermines India's federal character. Equally damaging is the elimination of the graduates' constituency, a bridge between academia and civil society that allowed ordinary citizens and alumni to shape PU’s moral direction. The new Senate may prove efficient in form but hollow in spirit.

The issue is about preserving the conditions under which thought can remain free. When universities are governed by fiat rather than consensus, scholarship becomes servitude and intellectual freedom is the next casualty. If the Centre unilaterally redefines a state university's governance, it sets a precedent that threatens every public university in the country. The future of higher education will be measured not by administrative efficiency but by the courage of its institutions to remain free.