The year-long uncertainty over the Panjab University (PU) Senate had already left students on edge when the Centre’s October 28 reform notification suddenly transformed the protest into a widespread political movement. Although the Center was eventually forced to roll back the reforms, the initial notification evoked sharp reactions from student groups, former senators, state parties and the larger Punjabi community. With reforms now off the table, the focus has returned to the original demand – the announcement of the Senate election schedule. HT investigates why the reform proposal ignited such a strong political and community reaction across Punjab.
Q. What are Senate and Syndicate and why are they important for PU governance?
The Senate is the highest decision making authority in PU. It approves major policies, finance, academic matters and long-term planning. On the other hand, the Syndicate acts as the executive government of the university and handles appointments, promotions and day-to-day administration. Former Vice-Chancellor (VC) Arun Grover points out that the VC, as chief executive, presides over both bodies but does not control how they are constituted. Of the 91 Senate seats, 36 are nominated by the Chancellor (Vice President of India), while the rest come from elected constituencies such as teachers, principals and registered graduates. A key pillar of this structure is the Registered Graduate Constituency, which serves as the voice of the alumni in the administration of the University. Five years after graduation, any PU alumnus can register as a graduate voter and once registered, they can also contest elections from this constituency. The graduate constituency elects 15 members to the Senate.
Voting for these seats is widespread – PU sets up multiple booths primarily in Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan, allowing alumni from far-flung places to participate in the governance of their alma mater. This mix of elected and nominated members is what gives PU its identity as a representative, public university with substantial participation from Punjab.
Q. What triggered the current push for Senate reforms?
There is also a long institutional history of emphasis on structural reforms. According to former VC Grover, entrenched groups within the Senate and the Syndicate repeatedly blocked routine functioning, staged walkouts, opposed transparency measures such as videography of meetings and at times worked to weaken the office of the VC, which he describes as “a catastrophe in governance”. He says that due to these disruptions it has become difficult for the administration to carry out even basic educational and administrative work.
A reform committee set up by Chancellor Venkaiah Naidu in 2021 during the tenure of VC Raj Kumar ultimately recommended structural changes to prevent concentration of power and ensure smooth functioning. But these proposals never came into effect.
Instead, the PU entered a deep crisis last year as the Senate’s term ended in October 2024 and no new elections were announced, thus creating a governance vacuum at the highest decision-making level. Stepping into this void, the Center issued the Senate reform notification on October 28, which rapidly increased political and campus tensions.
Q. What changes occurred in the governance structure of PU due to the Centre’s notification of October 28?
The notification of 28 October attempted to completely reconstitute the Senate and the Syndicate, replacing the long-standing mix of elected and nominated members with a smaller, largely reorganized structure. The notification reduced the Senate from its existing 91-member body (36 nominated + elected constituencies including teachers, principals and 15 registered graduates) to a 31-member Senate. Its new composition will be: 18 elected members, six nominated by the Chancellor, seven ex officio members.
The reforms also capped the number of “Ordinary Fellows” (non-ex officio members) at 24, whereas in the earlier structure the number could go up to 85. One of the most controversial changes was the removal of the undergraduate constituency, which elects 15 Senate members and is widely seen as a way of giving alumni a democratic stake in PU’s governance. The notification removed the provision allowing graduates to register as voters and instead proposed that only two alumni would be nominated by the Chancellor, thus ending direct alumni elections.
The Syndicate was also revamped to transform it from an elected to a nominated body. All members were to be nominated either by the VC or ex officio. The membership consisted of the Secretary of Higher Education (MOE), DPI of Punjab and Chandigarh, a senator nominated by the Chancellor and about 10 rotating nominees from amongst deans, professors, college principals and senior faculty. The new structure also expanded the powers of the syndicate to delegate executive powers directly to the VC or sub-committees. Those supporting the 28 October reforms argued that PU’s existing Senate had become “overly politicized and insufficiently academic-oriented”, making structural change necessary. A major reason cited was the graduated electorate: the voter list had become heavily inflated, with thousands of inactive or even dead voters still listed, increasing the possibility of manipulation of the electoral process. Holding elections in many states was also described as logistically exhausting and costly. 2 crores each cycle. Former senator Dharender Tayal said the reforms were aimed at creating a leaner, cleaner system, “a Senate that operates with an academic purpose rather than political pressure.”
Q. Why did the protests and political reaction start over the reform notification?
For Punjab as a community, this notification collided with two old concerns: the loss of democratic representation and the fear of central takeover. Student groups, fellow senators and political parties saw the removal of elected constituencies as an attempt to sideline Punjab’s voice in the university. Former senator Jagwant Singh says that people initially assumed that the elections were only being delayed. “Once the notification came out, people felt that something illegal was being done,” he says. Grover says the notification was issued “without the explicit participation of PU stakeholders”, which deepened the distrust. Many in Punjab interpreted this as a decline in the state’s democratic share. Former senator IP Sidhu argues that the reforms were shaped by those who “wanted to reduce the democratic component” and that nominated constituencies, which he says are “never active in functioning”, should have been reduced instead. However, Tayal offers a completely different perspective. He says the notification was misread, arguing that the syndicate will still be largely ex-officio and internally elected, not chosen by the Centre. He says the Centre’s influence will reduce from 39% to 26%.
Q. After the controversial notification is cancelled, what is the way forward?
All former senators agree on one thing: the only way forward is to properly restore democratic processes. But there is disagreement over how fast this should happen. It has been more than a week since VC Renu Vig announced that the process of Senate elections has started as the election schedule was sent to the Chancellor’s office for his approval. However, according to people aware of the matter, there has been no response on this later. A former senator says the delay is unnecessary because “there is no statutory provision” requiring external approval; The schedule can be notified immediately. However, Grover argues that reforms should accompany elections, including updating the graduate roll, limiting senators to a faculty vote, and preventing repeated syndicate dominance. Even if the program is approved immediately, PU rules require about 240 days between issuance of notification and voting for the graduate constituency and about 90 days for other constituencies – meaning that the election process will inevitably drag on for several months after approval.
In short, the PU crisis is not about a withdrawn notification – it is the result of long-standing structural weaknesses, a stalled electoral process and a deep layer of mistrust between Punjab and the Centre. While these governance shortcomings will require continued correction over the years, the cause of the immediate unrest on campus is far more obvious. The ‘Punjab University Bachao Morcha’ is gaining momentum and its final, non-negotiable demand is the announcement of the Senate election schedule. For now, opposition is expected to subside once the program is formally notified, even though larger structural issues remain to be addressed after the elections.
