Explainer: PU governance reset that’s been withdrawn

The Centre’s decision to roll back the sweeping overhaul of the governing bodies of Panjab University, Chandigarh — the Senate and the Syndicate — follows a strong political backlash over the controversial move in Punjab. Within academic circles, though, opinion remains divided on the restructuring of the varsity’s governance model. On November 4, the Centre had put on hold and not withdrawn its October 30 notification on the new rules of engagement, prompting students and Opposition parties to intensify their agitation. The November 7 order effectively nullifies all the changes. But what were these changes, why were these effected, and why the fierce criticism?

THE ISSUE AT HAND

The October 30 notification invoked Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, to amend the Panjab University Act, 1947. It substituted Section 13 (on Ordinary Fellows) and omitted Section 14 (on Senate elections).

The Senate — once a 91-member body of elected and nominated representatives — was trimmed to 31, including 24 Ordinary Fellows: two eminent alumni, eight elected teachers, four principals, six college lecturers, and two nominees of the Punjab Assembly Speaker. The two remaining members were to be nominated by the Chancellor. It was to have seven ex-officio members: the Punjab Chief Minister, Education Minister, Chandigarh MP, and senior officials from Punjab and the UT Administration.

The Syndicate — PU’s ‘executive government’ — was restructured to comprise the Vice Chancellor as chairperson, the Union Higher Education Secretary, DPI (Colleges) of Punjab and UT, one Senate member nominated by the Chancellor, and 10 other members nominated by the Vice Chancellor from among deans, professors, associate professors, and college principals.

LAWS TO TAKE NOTE OF

Panjab University traces its roots to Lahore (1882) and was re-established in Independent India through the Panjab University Act, 1947, enacted by the Punjab Legislative Assembly. In 1966, Section 72 of the Reorganisation Act declared PU as an “inter-state body corporate”, empowering the Centre to issue directions “for removing difficulties” in its functioning. Since then, all changes to the PU Act have been notified under this provision.

The October 30 move drew upon the recommendations of a high-powered panel constituted in 2020 by the then Vice-President and PU Chancellor, M Venkaiah Naidu. It included the VCs of PU, GNDU in Amritsar, and Central University, Bathinda, besides representatives of Punjab and Chandigarh. The report, submitted in 2022, called for reducing political interference, limiting the size of governing bodies, and strengthening teacher representation.

POLITICAL FLASHPOINT

Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann called the Centre’s move “dictatorial and unconstitutional”, accusing it of “attacking Punjab’s rights and heritage”. The AAP government also announced plans to challenge the notification legally and in the Vidhan Sabha. Chandigarh’s Congress MP Manish Tewari met the Vice-President, also the PU Chancellor, seeking a relook.

Former Union minister Pawan Kumar Bansal and several Akali leaders echoed the objections, arguing that the Panjab University Act, 1947, is a state law and cannot be amended by an executive order. Under mounting pressure, the Centre’s rescission on November 4 calmed tempers but did not settle the core question: whether Delhi can alter PU’s constitutional structure through a transitional clause nearly six decades after reorganisation?

ROLE OF SENATE and SYNDICATE

The Senate is PU’s supreme governing body — the equivalent of a parliament of academics. It oversees finance, policy, and long-term development. The Syndicate functions as its executive arm, implementing decisions, supervising administration, and managing appointments, promotions, and affiliations.

Historically, the Senate included elected teachers, principals, alumni, and representatives from the Graduate Constituency — an electorate of PU degree-holders. The Syndicate was partly elected by the Senate, giving the university a rare blend of democratic representation and academic oversight. Over time, these elections became fiercely political. Critics alleged that governance had turned into a proxy battleground for influence and patronage.

CONTENTIOUS GRADUATE CONSTITUENCY

The Graduate Constituency — where thousands of alumni voted to elect Senators — was once a proud symbol of participatory governance. However, charges of malpractices, inflated voter lists, and excessive expenditure led to demands for reform. VCs complained that election cycles overshadowed academics, diverting energy and funds.

The 2020 committee concluded that the constituency had outlived its purpose. Its abolition, formalised in the now withdrawn October 30 notification, was intended to “professionalise” governance.

NOT JUST ABOUT THE CAMPUS

For Punjab’s parties, the Centre’s move revived anxieties over Chandigarh’s status and the dilution of Punjab’s voice in joint institutions. Opposition leaders likened it to the 2020 farm laws, framing it as another “anti-Punjab” act. For the BJP, the reform was a long overdue clean-up. Long-time Senator Satya Pal Jain, who served on the reforms panel, said the changes were “constitutionally sound, legally valid, and in the best academic interest of PU”.

LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE

At the heart of the standoff lies Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Supporters argue the clause allows the Centre to issue directions modifying existing state laws governing reorganisation-affected institutions. Critics counter that Section 72 was a transitional provision, meant only for short-term administrative continuity in 1966 — not for rewriting a state statute in 2025.

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST

Supporters — including former VCs KN Pathak and Arun Grover, and former PUTA president Promila Pathak — argue that the overhaul will bring efficiency and end politicking. They describe it as a “teacher-centric” model aligned with the National Education Policy (NEP 2020).

Opponents — students, AAP, Congress, SAD, and farmer unions — call it “de-democratisation”. They warn it replaces representative decision-making with bureaucratic control and erodes Punjab’s share in governance.

Even as the Centre has rolled back its order, the debate is likely to continue on competing visions — academic autonomy versus administrative order, state rights versus Central authority, reform versus overreach.