The scenes from Panjab University’s campus in mid-November 2025 were striking: students and alumni breaking through Chandigarh Police police barricades to demand one simple thing—the democratic right to elect their university’s Senate and Syndicate. What unfolded was not merely a protest against Centre-driven governance reform; it was a symptom of a much deeper crisis in how Punjab’s state universities are governed and funded.
The irony cuts deep. As Panjab University’s students fought to preserve democratic governance, they were defending a system already fraying. Across Punjab’s other state universities—Punjabi University, Patiala; Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar; Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana; and the state technical and specialised universities—most governing decisions are already taken not by democratically elected bodies but by nomination-based structures where bureaucrats and administrators hold sway. Yet even this governance deficit is overshadowed by another reality: the market has come to dominate Punjab’s university landscape, while public institutions struggle to keep pace.
The Democratic Deficit
The structure of university governance was meant to balance expertise, representation and administrative efficiency. Panjab University once embodied this uniquely. Its graduate constituency—where any alumnus could vote to elect Senate members—was rare in Indian higher education. This reflected a constitutional compromise: the Centre had a stake, but Punjab retained primary ownership.
The Centre’s 28 October notification disrupted this balance sharply. The 97-member Senate shrank to 31. The 15 elected graduate seats disappeared. The Syndicate became a fully nominated body. Students and alumni protested something fundamental: the principle that those affected by decisions should have a voice in making them.
Yet this must also prompt a broader reflection across the state system. Most of Punjab’s state universities never had comparable democratic structures. At Punjabi University, GNDU and PAU, governance practices are already predominantly nomination-based. Faculty have limited representation; alumni have almost none; student voices are largely absent. The culture of democratic participation—never deeply rooted in Indian higher education—has steadily weakened.
When governance structures rely predominantly on nominations, accountability to the wider academic community diminishes. Decisions risk being driven by immediate administrative convenience rather than long-term academic vision. This is not an indictment of any particular government or set of officials; it is a structural vulnerability that successive governments can now consciously address.
Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar-Kapurthla.
The Market Ascendant
Parallel to this governance erosion, Punjab’s higher education landscape has undergone a profound market-driven transformation. Private universities—almost all created under state laws—now enrol nearly 60 per cent of campus-based students in the state. The three largest—Chandigarh University (about 31,000 students), Lovely Professional University (around 30,000–32,000 students) and Chitkara University (over 16,000 students)—collectively educate close to 78,000 students, compared to roughly 38,000–40,000 across the three major public universities.
This market dominance is reinforced by a significant financial gap. A student at LPU pays roughly Rs 3–6.4 lakh annually for B.Tech. At Chandigarh University, fees range from about Rs 2–5 lakh. By contrast, students at Punjabi University often pay between Rs 3,000 and 10,000 annually. The fee differential is enormous: private universities charge many times more than their public counterparts and, in return, advertise superior infrastructure, international collaborations and placement records.
A related, less-discussed dimension deepens this market influence: the Chancellors of some of Punjab’s largest private universities are sitting Members of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha, representing different political parties. This convergence of political authority and private higher education leadership does not automatically imply wrongdoing, but it certainly heightens the need for transparent, even-handed and institutionally robust regulation, so that public interest is not overshadowed by private or partisan considerations.
Punjab does have a legislative framework—the Punjab Regulation of Fee of Un-aided Educational Institutions Act, 2016—designed to regulate fees and protect students. However, enforcement mechanisms remain underdeveloped, and regulatory audits are infrequent and seldom visible in the public domain. Strengthening this framework offers a practical pathway: clear norms on fee increases, regular financial disclosures and predictable grievance redressal would reassure students and parents without discouraging legitimate private investment.
The Funding Challenge
Public universities operate under constraints that are primarily financial. Punjab’s five major state universities received about Rs 1,425 crore in 2024–25. While substantial at first glance, per-student allocations reveal the limits.
Punjabi University receives roughly Rs 375 crore for about 14,000 students—approximately Rs 2.67 lakh per student. Panjab University receives about Rs 85 crore for roughly 13,000–18,000 students—somewhere between Rs 4.63 and 6.34 lakh per student. Punjab Agricultural University received around Rs 40 crore in capital grants for a little over 3,000 students. Punjab Technical University largely operates on a self-financed model.
Much of this funding goes toward salaries and pensions. After meeting payroll obligations, capital investments in research, laboratories, libraries, hostels and new academic programmes remain minimal. The gap becomes stark when contrasted with private universities. A private institution charging Rs 5 lakh annually from 30,000 students generates approximately Rs 1,500 crore in tuition revenue—far exceeding the annual budget of comparable public institutions.
This should not be read as a simple criticism of the present dispensation in Chandigarh. Rather, it underlines a structural challenge: if Punjab wishes its public universities to remain competitive and socially inclusive, it must design a long-term funding strategy that goes beyond annual firefighting. Successive governments can, for instance, commit to multi-year funding compacts, link additional grants to academic performance and encourage universities to diversify their revenue through research contracts and philanthropic endowments.
Rebalancing Governance and Federalism
The Centre’s push to restructure Panjab University’s governance acquires deeper significance against this backdrop. By reducing elected positions and expanding nominations, the Centre asserted greater control over an institution historically linked to Punjab’s intellectual and cultural identity.
Panjab University is not a conventional central university. Established in 1882 by Punjab’s intellectual leadership, it stands at the intersection of federal and state responsibilities. The students who protested were defending not only voting rights but also the principle that states retain meaningful autonomy in shaping higher education.
At the same time, Punjab’s ability to assert this autonomy credibly depends on the strength of its own public universities, the transparency of their governance and the robustness of its regulatory framework for private institutions. Reforms in these areas would not weaken the state’s case vis-à-vis the Centre; they would strengthen it.
The Path Forward
The way forward need not be confrontational. It can be rooted in institutional strengthening and cooperative federalism, with both the Centre and the state recognising their shared stake in a healthy university ecosystem.
First:
Restore and deepen democratic processes at Panjab University. Holding Senate elections and reinstating graduate constituencies would reaffirm a commitment to participatory governance. Other state universities can similarly review their Acts and Statutes to introduce more meaningful faculty, student and alumni representation on their governing bodies.
Second:
Strengthen regulatory mechanisms for private universities. A statutory, independent regulatory commission, with clear authority to review fees, audit finances, enforce disclosure norms and hear grievances, can bring balance without discouraging private initiative. This is an area where Punjab can learn from states that have experimented with fee caps or transparent fee committees, while tailoring solutions to its own context.
Third:
Enhance funding for public universities through a medium- to long-term roadmap. A phased increase in budgetary support, tied to milestones in academic quality, employability, research output and inclusion, can help create a funding environment comparable to leading public universities across India. Encouraging alumni philanthropy and industry partnerships can complement, not replace, state support.
Fourth:
Reaffirm Panjab University’s unique federal status through dialogue, rather than unilateral notifications. A negotiated framework between the Centre and the state—covering governance structures, funding responsibilities and academic autonomy—would provide much-needed stability and predictability.
The struggle at Panjab University is ultimately about the future of higher education in Punjab—whether it remains a public good rooted in democratic values and social inclusion, or evolves into a predominantly market-driven enterprise accessible mainly to those who can afford it.
Punjab’s students have raised the right questions. It is now for the state, working with the Centre and with universities themselves, to craft the appropriate answers.