Delhi High Court’s intervention leads to partial relief, but some students face fines and ‘good conduct’ bonds
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI — Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) University has revoked the suspension of several students involved in a protest on the campus.
The university had suspended 17 students for participating in protests against disciplinary action taken against two PhD scholars who allegedly organised “Jamia Resistance Day” on December 15, 2024. This annual event commemorates the beginning of the 2019 protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
The university’s action followed a temporary stay issued by the Delhi High Court on March 4. However, the university has imposed different conditions for the reinstatement of these students, sparking mixed reactions.
On March 5, JMI lifted the suspension of seven students who were barred from academic activities due to their participation in the protests. These students were allowed to resume their studies without signing a ‘bond of good conduct,’ except for one individual. The decision came after the Delhi High Court intervened, granting interim relief until April.
However, on March 12, the university issued separate orders for ten other students, stating that their suspensions would only be revoked if they signed a ‘bond of good conduct’ within seven working days. This bond requires the students to adhere to university rules and maintain decorum.
The controversy began on February 12 when JMI suspended 17 students indefinitely and banned them from campus.
In a further development on March 15, the university suspended two more students — Niranjan KS, a law student, and Saurabh Tripathi, a PhD scholar from the Hindi Department. Both were told their suspensions could be lifted if they paid fines — Rs 3,000 for Niranjan and Rs 5,000 for Saurabh — and submitted a bond of good conduct.
Niranjan approached the Delhi High Court on March 10, seeking relief from the suspension order. His lawyer, Manik Gupta, informed the court that while the student had been allowed to attend classes, the Rs 3,000 fine remained a point of contention. “The fine is unjust and should be reconsidered,” Gupta argued.
Similarly, Saurabh Tripathi, who was among the seven students who approached the court, is required to sign the bond. Tripathi had been disciplined for participating in the December protest, which led to his suspension.
The Delhi High Court’s March 4 order temporarily stayed the suspensions and recommended forming a committee, including a student representative, to review the matter under the Vice-Chancellor’s supervision.
In its March 5 orders, JMI reminded the reinstated students to follow university rules, prohibiting them from participating in protests or demonstrations without prior permission. They were also directed not to block roads, gates, or buildings, as such actions could disrupt campus operations.
The decision has sparked debate over student activism and the university’s handling of protests. While some see the revocation of suspensions as a positive step, others criticise the varying conditions imposed on students.
“The university’s decision to revoke suspensions is a relief, but the different conditions for different students raise questions about fairness,” said a student who wished to remain anonymous.
