What Haryana’s Private University Amendment Act, 2025 means for Institutional Autonomy

On 22nd December 2025, the Haryana State Legislature passed a key amendment to the Haryana Private Universities Act, 2006. The Statement of Objects and Reasons in the bill cited a need to “streamline the procedure” of its functioning. A significant aspect of the amendment is the increased government say in private universities. 

Section 46 of the amendment grants the government power to appoint an “administrator” and take over university management by dissolving university authorities. Later clauses also permit the state to issue penalties or dissolve the university entirely by liquidating or auctioning its assets. As per the amendment, this clause may be called into effect on grounds of "maladministration," "academic compromise," and "governance failures" — terms that presently lack a clear legal definition. Section 46(1)(e) expands these powers to matters "relating to national security, sovereignty and integrity of India" or the alleged use of university premises for "unlawful or anti-national activities.” Under Section 46(9), upon invoking the national security clause, the authority to appoint and continue appointing all authorities of the university rests exclusively with the government. 

The amendment raises questions about academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Gautam Bhatia, Constitutional Law Scholar and Professor of Law at Jindal Global Law School, spoke with The Edict about the potential consequences of the state granting itself such power: “The first issue [with the amendment] is the vagueness,” he said. “If it does not specify the obligations [of the university] or detail the specific grounds on which penalties may be declared, it makes the state’s power entirely discretionary.” Bhatia explained that obligations could mean two things - mere procedural mandates, or “ideological obligations,” in terms of material taught or how much the university permits its students and faculty to be critical of the state. The amendment does not explicitly detail these obligations. 

The amendment provides minimal procedural safeguards before drastic action can be taken against universities. Under Section 46(5), institutions receive only seven days to respond to Show Cause Notices before an Administrator can be appointed. The government can act solely based on its own inquiry officer's report, with no independent judicial review mechanism specified in the bill. The expedited process creates significant concerns about fairness and institutional rights.

Under scrutiny, the amendment is still legally robust. “The trouble is that the constitution does provide permissible grounds for restrictions [of educational institutions],” said Bhatia. “That makes it difficult to argue against legally, even though it is a clear overreach.” This bill, particularly the vaguely defined "anti-national activities" clause as grounds for punitive action, could have an effect on institutions known for open discourse. “Faculty and students will most likely self-censor, and university policies will likely become stricter to avoid involving the government,” said Bhatia. Discussing potential legal challenges to the amendment, Bhatia explained that while it was unlikely the amendment could be declared unconstitutional, there was scope for the definitions of university obligations and misdemeanours to be made more specific. 

Given recent tensions between state governments and liberal arts institutions in the region, the timing and scope of these amendments are particularly relevant. The bill comes after the discovery of “alleged links” between Al-Falah University, Faridabad and the Red Fort Blast that occurred in November 2025, as well as the arrest of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad of Ashoka University over comments regarding Operation Sindoor in April 2025. 

[Edited by Tanay Daphtary, Anamta Husain and Somansh Sarangi]