Panjab University’s Degree Equivalence Debate: Law, Policy, and Local Sentiment

The administration of Panjab University, Chandigarh (PU), has sought to distance itself from the controversy over the equivalence of degrees awarded by the University of the Panjab, Lahore, particularly regarding their use in PU Senate elections.

Officials maintain that the University is merely following the University Calendar, arguing that their duty is limited to implementing its provisions. In effect, the administration has treated the matter as administrative rather than statutory.

The Legal Backdrop

At the heart of the issue lies Section 14(4) of the Panjab University Act, 1947, which limits recognition to graduates of the Lahore University before 1948. This clause was meant as a one‑time bridge—a pragmatic provision to help India’s new institutions find their footing after Partition.

But over time, the bridge has become a highway. The University Calendar continues to allow registration of Lahore degree‑holders up to 2021 for inclusion in the Registered Graduates constituency. That interpretation not only stretches the 1947 Act but also runs directly counter to the University Grants Commission (UGC) Public Notice of 2022, which withdrew recognition from all Pakistani degrees awarded after 1947.

Direct Conflict with UGC Regulations

The UGC Public Notice of 2022 leaves little room for doubt:

Indian citizens and Overseas Citizens of India are barred from pursuing higher education in Pakistan.
Degrees from Pakistani institutions awarded after 1947 are not recognised in India for any academic or professional purpose.
Only migrants from Pakistan who became Indian citizens, with clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs, may claim exceptions.

In this light, PU’s continued acceptance of Lahore‑awarded degrees up to 2021 conflicts directly with the UGC framework and may expose the University to questions of statutory non‑compliance.

Section 14(4): A Limited Transitional Provision

Section 14(4) of the Panjab University Act, 1947 (as amended) provides a narrow transitional clause:

“Any person who had graduated in any Faculty of the University of the Panjab at Lahore before the year 1948 shall, on application made and on payment of such fees and on complying with such conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations of the University, be entitled to have his name entered in the register of graduates of the Panjab University.”

This provision explicitly limits eligibility to those who graduated before 1948. It was designed as a post‑Partition arrangement to preserve the legitimacy of earlier degrees issued under British India. Degrees awarded after that year fall under a separate jurisdiction and legal structure.

• The law strictly limits eligibility to pre‑1948 graduates, a transitional safeguard intended for post‑Partition continuity. Degrees awarded after that year fall under Pakistan’s jurisdiction and have no legal equivalence in India.

Despite this, the current provisions of the University Calendar appear to extend recognition far beyond the statutory limit. The issue thus raises fundamental questions about the alignment of Panjab University’s internal regulations with national law and the authority under which such equivalence has been continued.

Sentiment Versus Statute

On the ground in Chandigarh, the issue carries a different emotional weight. Many alumni view the continued recognition of Lahore-degree holders as a symbolic continuity—a nod to a shared pre‑Partition lineage and institutional heritage.

But outside the city, that sentiment finds no sympathy. For policymakers and legal commentators, the equivalence represents a regulatory anomaly sustained by inertia, one that blurs the line between nostalgia and negligence.

Conclusion

The degree equivalence row has evolved from an administrative question into a test of institutional credibility and statutory compliance. Panjab University’s claim of merely “following the Calendar” may not hold if the Calendar itself stands on obsolete ground. As the university clings to heritage, the law demands alignment—a clash between sentiment and statute that PU can no longer afford to ignore.

“The bridge built after Partition was meant to close a chapter, not keep it open for seven decades.”

“Panjab University cannot hide behind its Calendar when the law has already moved on.”

“Between Chandigarh’s nostalgia and Delhi’s policy, the degrees of Lahore hang in legal limbo.”