Equity and excellence: Tamil Nadu’s shift toward academic autonomy

The proposed amendment to the Private Universities Act, 2019 — introducing the categories of ‘Brownfield’ and ‘Minority Private University’ — marks a significant inflexion point in Tamil Nadu’s higher education trajectory. By enabling established institutions to transition into private universities, the policy seeks to unlock dormant academic potential and expand institutional capacity. Yet, this structural shift demands a careful, scholarly examination of its implications for educational quality, pedagogical integrity, and the broader goals of higher education.

At the heart of the amendment lies the promise of autonomy. Colleges currently affiliated with public universities often operate under rigid academic frameworks — standardised syllabi, centralised examinations, and bureaucratic controls — that constrain innovation. The transition to private university status offers the possibility of designing interdisciplinary curricula, integrating emerging global trends, and fostering research-led teaching. Evidence from national surveys suggests that autonomous institutions tend to report better academic outcomes and more adaptive pedagogical practices. This flexibility could catalyse a shift from rote learning to inquiry-based models, enhancing graduates’ readiness for a dynamic, knowledge-driven economy.

The amendment also addresses a long-standing logistical challenge: land acquisition. By reducing the minimum land requirement from 100 acres to 25 acres in urban areas, the policy acknowledges spatial constraints and urban density. This recalibration makes conversion feasible for many established colleges, potentially accelerating the expansion of quality education without the delays and costs associated with greenfield development. In principle, this could democratise access to university-level infrastructure and reduce the gestation period for institutional growth.

However, the policy’s transformative potential is tempered by serious concerns. Chief among them is the risk of eroding equity. The amendment restricts reservation policies to designated “government seats” in select professional courses, excluding a wide spectrum of undergraduate programs in arts, sciences, and engineering. This narrow application could disproportionately affect students from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds, reinforcing existing barriers to access. Data from national sample surveys consistently show that private, self-financing education remains out of reach for many low-income households. Without corrective measures, the policy risks entrenching a two-tier system where quality education is increasingly mediated by economic privilege.

The financial implications of conversion also merit scrutiny. Transitioning from government-aided to self-financing status implies the withdrawal of public funding for salaries and infrastructure. This shift could lead to increased tuition fees, placing the financial burden squarely on students and their families. Simultaneously, faculty and staff may face diminished job security, undermining academic freedom and institutional morale. In such an environment, the pursuit of profitability may incentivise short-term, market-driven courses at the expense of foundational disciplines — particularly in the humanities and basic sciences — that are essential for cultivating critical thought and civic engagement.

Moreover, autonomy without accountability can be counterproductive. The mere act of conversion does not guarantee academic excellence. Without robust oversight, there is a risk of institutional proliferation without quality assurance, leading to a dilution of standards. The danger lies in replacing one form of regulation with another that is less transparent and more susceptible to commercial pressures. If not carefully managed, this could result in a landscape dominated by credentialism rather than competence, undermining the credibility of the higher education system.

To mitigate these risks, the policy must be anchored in a framework of rigorous safeguards. Regulatory oversight must be strengthened, with the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education assuming a proactive role in monitoring academic standards. Mandatory accreditation with the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) should be enforced within a defined timeframe, focusing on learning outcomes, faculty qualifications, research output, and graduate employability. Institutions failing to meet these benchmarks must face clear consequences, including the revocation of university status.

Equity must be preserved through a recalibrated reservation policy. Extending the government quota and associated reservation benefits to all undergraduate programs would uphold the state’s commitment to social justice. Additionally, a mandatory scholarship fund — financed by the universities themselves — should be instituted to support students from economically weaker sections. This would ensure that access to quality education is not contingent on financial capacity alone.

Faculty welfare must be protected through legally binding guarantees on service conditions, salaries, and retirement benefits. Such provisions are essential for maintaining institutional stability and attracting qualified educators. For students, transparent fee regulation is crucial in preventing profiteering and ensuring affordability. Regulatory bodies must monitor fee structures and enforce ceilings where necessary, drawing on best practices from other states that have successfully implemented such mechanisms.

Finally, the amendment must incentivise a holistic educational mission. Approvals for new programs should be contingent on demonstrable investments in pedagogy, infrastructure, and curricular balance. For instance, a university proposing a new technology program should also demonstrate its commitment to ethics, communication, and foundational sciences. This integrated approach would prevent the fragmentation of knowledge and promote the development of well-rounded graduates.

In sum, the proposed amendment offers a transformative opportunity — but only if pursued with caution, clarity, and a steadfast commitment to the foundational goals of higher education. These goals include not just skill generation, but the cultivation of intellectual resilience, ethical reasoning, and social responsibility. The success of this policy will not be measured by the number of colleges converted, but by the quality of education imparted, the diversity of students served, and the integrity of institutions nurtured. Without these safeguards, the move risks commodifying education and deepening inequality — outcomes that would be difficult to reverse and antithetical to the very purpose of higher learning.

Thakur is Professor and Dean at Vinayaka Mission’s School of Economics and Public Policy, Chennai