India, Jan. 29 -- The cabinet's approval of the Punjab Private Digital Open Universities Policy, 2026, marks a significant milestone in Indian higher education. Punjab has become the first state to provide both a comprehensive policy framework and an operational model for fully digital universities. This initiative recognises a critical disconnect: Students obtain formal degrees from traditional colleges while acquiring genuinely employable skills from YouTube, Coursera, and other online platforms. Punjab's digital universities promise to bridge this gap by integrating cutting-edge skills-artificial intelligence, cyber security, cloud computing, data science, and business analytics-directly into degree programmes delivered entirely online. The policy's structural features are commendable. Private institutions must establish sophisticated digital infrastructure, including content studios, IT server rooms, learning management systems, AI-proctored examination facilities, and 24x7 tech-enabled student support. Each proposed digital university requires a separate Bill in the Punjab assembly, creating a measure of democratic accountability that is often absent from private higher education ventures. For working professionals, students in remote areas, and families seeking cost-effective education, the advantages could be transformative. While PTU's earlier distance education scandal serves as a cautionary tale, the 2026 policy's structural architecture is materially different. Yet structure alone cannot guarantee protection for students. Byju's, once India's most celebrated edtech company, accumulated losses of Rs.4,622 crore despite vast funding and sophisticated infrastructure. Students faced uncertainty over refunds and the legitimacy of credentials. The lesson is straightforward: A moderately successful digital university enrolling hundreds of thousands of students could generate Rs.100-200 crore in annual fees, making a Rs.20 crore corpus requirement relatively insignificant. A corpus, however substantial at the entry stage, offers no assurance against financial mismanagement or failure to deliver educational quality. What is required is continuing oversight, not one-time vetting. Similarly problematic is the 2.5-acre minimum land requirement. This is merely the minimum norm for CBSE schools and appears insufficient for institutions that may serve hundreds of thousands of students, even if teaching is conducted online. More concerning, the policy appears to allow leasehold arrangements. A digital university operating on leased land is not only exposed to landlord-related risks but may also signal a more nebulous long-term commitment on the part of the promoters. Students pursuing multi-year degree programmes could face suspended coursework and a loss of educational continuity. Unlike physical universities, where tangible assets may offer some recourse, purely digital institutions operating from leased land offer students virtually no protection if the lease is terminated unexpectedly. The most critical weakness lies in the sequencing of legislative approval and regulatory legitimacy. The current framework appears to grant legislative approval first and require UGC compliance thereafter. This is problematic because UGC regulations (2020) lay down detailed norms for online and open distance learning-covering faculty qualifications, content validation, examination security, student safeguards, and financial sustainability. In practice, UGC recognition is what determines operational academic legitimacy. Punjab should, therefore, reverse the practical sequence of commencement. After the assembly Bill is passed, following rigorous due diligence by the state government, the enactment should provide that it becomes operative only from such date as the state government may specify by notification in the official gazette. That notification should be issued only after explicit clearance from the UGC, following its independent appraisal of compliance with all applicable distance education norms. This ensures that UGC approval, and not state law alone, determines the real commencement of operations. This approach has precedent: Regulators such as AICTE and NCTE condition institutional operations on compliance, not merely on legal establishment. Financial safeguards require strengthening. The Rs.20-crore corpus should be maintained as a non-depleting reserve throughout the university's life. Annual audits by independent chartered accountants should be mandatory, with results submitted to both the UGC and the state government. Student fee accounts should be legally protected and segregated from operational expenditure until services are demonstrably delivered. Oversight must not be delegated to Punjab Technical University, a potential competitor, nor left to the state's technical education department, whose role should remain policy-driven. Punjab should establish a dedicated statutory regulator, independent of competing institutions, with clear powers to enforce UGC-linked compliance and protect student funds. A SEBI-style model would provide the credibility and discipline needed to protect students at scale. Punjab has the framework right; now it must get the safeguards right....