The lawyers’ group says sit-ins and satyagraha are constitutionally protected forms of non-violent dissent
KOCHI — The National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR), a collective of lawyers, law students and legal professionals from across India, has urged the Kerala High Court to reconsider its recent observations that protests, hunger strikes and satyagraha have no place in a constitutional democracy, particularly within educational institutions.
In a statement, the group criticised the court’s remarks and argued that peaceful sit-ins are legitimate democratic means of seeking accountability, especially when institutional mechanisms fail. It said courts across the country had recognised peaceful protest as part of the fundamental freedom guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.
NAJAR called on the High Court to uphold the constitutional right of all citizens, including students, to engage in peaceful protest.
The statement follows a 3 November 2026 judgment by a Division Bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and Muralee Krishna S in Sri Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit vs Archana P S and Others (W.A. 2276/2026).
The Bench set aside an interim order passed by a single judge directing Sri Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, Ernakulam, to accept the fees of 16 suspended students and allow them to appear in examinations.
The appeal was decided on the basis of the pleadings and the request for interim relief. In doing so, the Division Bench referred to observations in the 2017 case Dr Antony Thomas v. V.M. Muhammad Rafiq, which stated that students participating in such protests within educational institutions could face expulsion or rustication.
The university has alleged that students caused disruption and engaged in physical assault on 13 August 2026. The students have denied the allegations, and an investigation is underway.
NAJAR said it was not taking a position on the disputed facts and did not support violence if any had occurred. However, it stressed that whether violence took place and whether peaceful protest has a place on university campuses were two separate questions that should not be conflated.
The group argued that describing non-violent campus protests as anti-democratic risks equating legitimate student demands for better facilities and rights with unlawful disruption.
Constitutional Protection for Peaceful Protest
NAJAR said Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantee freedom of expression and the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. It argued that the Constitution does not prohibit peaceful forms of protest such as sit-ins and satyagraha, and that these protections do not cease to apply because the individuals involved are students or because the protest takes place on a university campus.
The group cited Supreme Court judgments, including the Ramlila Maidan Incident case (2012), Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018) and Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), as recognising peaceful protest as part of these constitutional freedoms.
Invocation of Ambedkar Views Questioned
The group also challenged the use of Dr B R Ambedkar’s views on the “Grammar of Anarchy” to justify restrictions on student protests.
The Division Bench reiterated the observations made in Dr Antony Thomas v. V M Muhammad Rafiq and Others, which stated:
“Political activities like dharnas, hunger strikes and satyagraha have no place in a constitutional democracy, and least of all in educational institutions. If any person indulges in such activities in an educational institution, he can be expelled or rusticated. Educational institutions are meant for imparting education, not for politics. Political parties cannot hold an educational institution to ransom for their political ambitions, nor can they obstruct the right of decent students to pursue education.”
NAJAR said the observations appeared to draw on Ambedkar’s argument that unconstitutional methods were unjustified where constitutional remedies were available. However, it described the application of that argument to student politics as a distortion of his ideas that could lend a constitutional justification to institutional suppression.
The group said the central question was whether constitutional remedies had actually been available to the students concerned. It argued that the court had not examined this issue in sufficient depth.
Where university administrations act arbitrarily, NAJAR said, institutional remedies may become practically inaccessible. In such circumstances, peaceful protest should not automatically be treated as unlawful; it may be the remaining constitutional means through which students can demand accountability.
The statement also argued that Ambedkar’s advocacy of constitutional methods needed to be understood in the context of his changing political thought before and after the adoption of the Constitution.
It recalled that Ambedkar had led the Mahad Satyagraha in 1927 and said invoking his views to justify a blanket prohibition on satyagraha selectively presented his legacy. Treating non-violent protest as a crime, the group argued, misrepresented the purpose of his ideas and warnings.
NAJAR said satyagraha had been a major form of popular resistance during India’s freedom struggle and could not be regarded as foreign to constitutional democracy. The method popularised by Mahatma Gandhi, it said, had itself contributed to the making of Indian democracy.
The group also highlighted the role of student movements in shaping universities in Kerala and elsewhere, from participation in the Non-Cooperation and Quit India movements to more recent campaigns against discriminatory hostel curfews for women and caste discrimination on campuses.
It referred to student protests across the country following allegations of irregularities and paper leaks surrounding the NEET-UG examination, which was subsequently cancelled by the National Testing Agency. The statement said the protests had contributed to demands for accountability from the authorities.
NAJAR argued that such movements did not distract from education or obstruct it. Rather, they enabled students and young people to seek answers and accountability from educational institutions.
It said the argument that universities existed only to impart education and not to engage with politics either reflected a lack of political understanding or sought to distance students from critical thinking and democratic expression.
The group said educational institutions should provide students with lawful mechanisms to raise grievances and should address legitimate complaints rather than respond with disciplinary action or suppression.
Removing politics from campuses, it argued, should not mean depriving students of the ability to question injustice, understand social structures and seek change.
NAJAR maintained that students should not be prevented from raising legitimate grievances because of their political affiliations, their refusal to apologise, or their discussion of issues whose facts have yet to be fully established. Peaceful protest, it said, did not make students less civilised or disruptive.
It warned that restricting the right to peaceful protest could weaken democratic and progressive civic spaces in Kerala, arguing that the state’s present social and political character had been shaped by student and citizens’ movements, democratic resistance and constitutional struggles.
The group urged Sri Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit to complete its investigation promptly and impartially, in accordance with the principles of natural justice and proportionality.
It also called on the Kerala High Court not to rely on its 2017 observations to penalise those engaging in peaceful protest. Dissent on campuses, NAJAR said, should not be criminalised or treated as a threat to education.
