Nine students from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), suspended following accusations tied to an October 22 clash during a freshers’ event, were granted temporary relief by the Delhi High Court after raising concerns about procedural fairness. The students, who claimed they had been unfairly barred from campus for two semesters without a hearing, approached the Court for justice.
The suspension orders, issued on October 25 by JNU’s Chief Proctor, came as a surprise to the students, who stated they only learned of accusations against them after the fact. In their petition, they questioned whether the actual reasons for their rustication were properly communicated. “No official explanation has clarified the basis of our suspension,” they argued, pointing to circulated pamphlets filled with unsubstantiated claims but no allegations of sexual harassment—charges they said only appeared formally in an Office Order.
On October 29, Justice Purushendra Kumar Kaurav observed that JNU’s actions ignored the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem, or the right to a fair hearing. “The suspension order reflects no effort to hear the students’ side,” the Court noted, adding that the students would be permitted to stay in their dormitories at least until the next hearing, scheduled for November 8.
This incident reportedly traces back to a student complaint filed by 47 female students with JNU’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), alleging harassment and violence at the October 22 event hosted by the Centre for the Study of Social Systems. What began as a verbal dispute reportedly escalated when some attendees allegedly made offensive remarks, sparking a physical altercation.
The accused students argued that they were not involved in any misconduct and suggested that tensions from a recent student election might have fueled the confrontation. According to their statements, rival student groups pressured them to leave the event, leading to verbal and physical hostilities that forced them to exit the scene.
JNU’s student union (JNUSU) has voiced discontent over the administration’s response, accusing the ICC of mishandling the initial complaint by treating it as an individual issue rather than a collective grievance. They also demanded the removal of the ICC’s presiding officer, alleging procedural missteps, and criticized JNU’s approach as one of “student intimidation” and “victim-blaming.”
As the case develops, the Court’s intervention highlights concerns over administrative due process at JNU, underscoring the importance of fairness and transparency amid campus disputes. The university has yet to respond to the recent court order.
