New Delhi: In June 2024, the National Testing Agency (NTA) found itself embroiled in controversies related to paper leaks for both the national entrance exam for medical education and the exam for entry-level teaching jobs in universities and admissions to PhD programmes.
A wave of protest erupted nationwide, sparked by widespread dissatisfaction with the NTA's irregularities in conducting the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and UGC-NET exams. Students in the capital became a part of this movement, questioning the government over NTA’s accountability, and demanding abolition of the organisation.
Jyoti Karki, an MA Russian student at the University of Delhi’s (DU) Department of Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian Studies and a member of Disha Student Organisation (DSO), a student activist group, said she felt “a deep sense of responsibility” to raise her voice against the NTA.
“DSO had designed the campaign to call out NTA’s negligence in holding entrance exams, which had led to question paper leaks and cancellation of entrances, causing distress to students,“ said Karki. “We had planned a protest on 9 August at Jantar Mantar to demand NTA’s revocation.”
To raise awareness for the upcoming protest and invite students to stand together in unity, she and her companion chose to write—as many generations before her had—slogans on a wall.
On 31 July, Karki and her companion went out in the night, searching the campus for an empty wall to write their message, as the university’s ‘wall of democracy’—the ‘official’ area for wall writing—was full of slogans from the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the youth wing of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.
Finally, near the law faculty, they found a suitable space and began—with spray cans of red and blue paint—their expression of dissent. “Scrap NTA, 9th August, Jantar Mantar; @disha_du,” they wrote.
Karki said, “When I was painting the call to protest, I knew that I was not doing it just on behalf of the DSO group, as an obligation, but because I knew I was standing up for the students.”
‘Who Decides What Is Objectionable?’
DU suspended Karki on 21 August 2024. The suspension notice said the university had received a copy of an FIR filed against her in the Maurice Nagar police station.
The suspension letter, a copy of which has been accessed by Article 14 states, “As communicated by the Proctor, University of Delhi, you are hereby suspended from the Department of Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian Studies, University of Delhi with immediate effect as the University received a copy of FIR from the Maurice Nagar Police Station stating that you were caught red-handed writing objectionable slogans on the walls of the University on 31.07.2024.”
“Whatever she wrote on the wall, the university said that it was objectionable,” said Amarjeet Kumar Singh, Karki’s lawyer. “Who decides what is objectionable?”
On 24 September, a university committee consisting of professor Rajni Abbi, the university proctor, and professors Ranjan Kumar Tiwari and Amitava Chakraborty, was constituted to investigate the matter. Abbi is a member of the BJP and former mayor of Delhi.
The committee, in its final report on 13 November, said, “At their second meeting on November 6, 2024, Ms. Jyoti admitted to the act, explaining it was part of a group plan. However, she showed no remorse for her actions. The committee has recommended a six-month expulsion, citing the need to discourage defacement and uphold university discipline.”
The Proctor’s Dilemma
According to DU’s Ordinance XV-B, which deals with the maintenance of discipline among students of the university, the vice-chancellor has the authority to manage discipline and take disciplinary actions at the University of Delhi. This power can be delegated to the Proctor or other designated individuals.
The ordinance mentions several offences, including the destruction of institutional property. It says nothing about action against students for “defacement”.
DU proctor, Rajni Abbi, said the university faced challenges in dealing with wall writing, "If we don't act the high court comes after us,” she said. “If we do take action, the students come after us.”
Abbi says that she hadn’t seen the wall writing herself and didn't know what Karki wrote. She added that the decision to expel Jyoti Karki was made by the Vice-Chancellor, not by her.
Karki said that she was being unfairly targeted by the university because of her political ideology.
Hindi professor and political commentator Apoorvanand of Delhi University described the university’s action against Karki as “partisan and heavy-handed”.
“It's outrageous,” said Apoorvanand, who uses a single name. “Students have the right to express their views, be it about anything.”
Shutting Down Student Activism
Apoorvanand said the suppression of student activism began in 2015, with incidents in JNU, Ramjas and Hyderabad University, and that no student activism is now allowed in many institutions, such as Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University.
“Any student activism critical of the government is met with punishment”, he said.
During the 2020 protests against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act, students at Jamia Millia Islamia and Jawaharlal Nehru University were arrested and charged with sedition, displaying the authorities' hostile approach in response to student dissent and political opposition.
In 2023, Ramadas Prini Sivanandan, a Dalit scholar at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences was suspended for two years for participating in protests against the National Education Policy, illustrating this growing trend of penalising students for their activism.
The same year, several universities restricted, banned and even expelled students for screening the BBC documentary 'India: The Modi Question', which questioned Prime Minister Modi's role during the 2002 Gujarat riots, further hindering academic freedom and free speech.
Apoorvanand added that Delhi University has changed in the last 10 years. "The administration is pro-government right now,” he said. “This trend can only be reversed if the students realise their right to freedom of speech and expression and assert it."
A Long Fight Against Suspension
On 30 September, Karki petitioned the Delhi High Court, arguing that her suspension was “arbitrary and illegal”; and that the university's decision was taken “without following the due procedure” as “no show-cause notice was issued nor was the student allow[ed] to defend her case”.
The petition said Karki attempted to reach out to university officials, but the university authorities were “not ready to meet the petitioner in person” as Karki was “not allowed to enter inside the university campus”.
As a result, she was debarred from attending any classes leading to academic loss for almost five months.
The petition said that during this five-month period, she went through “high levels of stress and mental torture”.
“It had been three months since my suspension, and then on 18 November I received an expulsion letter of six months. My studies have been affected,” said Karki. “My whole year has gone to waste.”
Karki’s petition demanded revocation of her suspension, “remedial classes” to “compensate” for her academic “loss” and “ disciplinary action” against the officials responsible.
"We were just two people, and around 30 to 40 policemen came with only one female officer among them," said Karki.
She said she was separated from her friend, alleging detention and later accompanied back to her room by the lone female officer.
“When they brought me back, my friends from DSO asked the lady officer where my companion was, and why my Aadhaar card and university ID were taken,” said Karki, “That’s when they told us we’d have to come to the police station.”
Article 14 reached out to the Maurice Nagar police station for comment on Karki’s case, but the station house officer (SHO) said that he would not comment because the case involved a female individual.
Singh, Karki’s lawyer, said, “When I spoke to the SHO, he denied any detention and claimed that Jyoti was only asked to visit the station.”
Questions Of Fairness & Ideology
Singh referenced a similar case, Prashant Manchanda vs Union of India, where the court adopted a reformative attitude, giving suspended students’ union candidates a second chance and requiring them to file affidavits committing to avoid such actions in the future.
In contrast, Karki faced immediate suspension based on the FIR filed against her.
“Even the act of defacement they are trying to hold against Jyoti doesn’t make any sense,” said Singh. “The university after the DU elections, simply asked the candidates who were responsible for wall writing to apologize with an affidavit, and that was the end of it. In this way, under equality before the law, why wasn’t she given a second chance?”
Abbi, the DU proctor, said students accused in that case were asked to clean the campus as part of their punishment. “Jyoti didn't show any remorse for her actions,” said Abbi. “She admitted to writing the slogan, but when asked if she regretted it, she said no.”
Singh said, “Any accused, including Karki, has the right to natural justice and a fair chance to tell their side of the story before any action is taken.”
He alleged that Delhi University completely ignored this when it suspended Karki solely based on an FIR filed on the night of 31st July, which was registered on the basis of the statement of a security guard.
Singh said an FIR is just the first step in the legal process.
“An FIR is an allegation, not a judgement,” said Singh. “It's the police's job to investigate, file a chargesheet and then the court decides whether the accused is guilty or not. You can't treat an FIR as proof.”
Singh said that suspending someone just because an FIR exists ignores the entire judicial process, “If FIRs are treated as judgements, then what's the point of trials?”
Singh said he believed the entire case was about ideology. Karki was targeted because of her views, he said, adding how during recent DUSU elections, “massive wall writing” was widespread.
Singh and Karki both alleged that the university used her case to set an example for other student activists.
Singh said that Karki's involvement during the debates on campus over the NEET paper leak and controversies around the NET exam, which led to the cancellation of the paper by the NTA, might have made her a target for the university's administration.
Apoorvanand alleged that the ABVP plays a significant role in suppressing student dissent at DU.
“If you raise your voice against the government, the ABVP will come after you first,” Apoorvanand said. “The university will dismiss it as a ‘student matter’ and then later take action against you.”
Asked if students could still have faith in the judiciary, Apoorvanand said the judiciary might offer some relief in individual cases, such as in Karki's, but cautioned that legal intervention could not alone reverse the tide.
Delays & Apologies
The first hearing of Karki’s case was in October. The court issued a notice to the university, giving it 2 weeks to respond.
“Even though we filed an early hearing petition, they kept delaying it,” said Singh. “In the third hearing, their juniors came and said that the seniors weren’t available due to some reasons and that they would appear in the afternoon, but didn’t present anything even then.”
Since then, there have been three more hearings.
In the most recent one, on 25 November, the court stayed her expulsion and asked Karki to submit an affidavit promising not to repeat such actions. Karki’s lawyer said he persuaded her to submit the affidavit.
The court has also given Delhi University four weeks to file a counter affidavit.
But Karki remained defiant.
“The inquiry committee just wanted me to accept that I had made a mistake and wanted me to apologise,” said Karki. “I do not find anything wrong in what I did, so what is there to apologise for?”
(Saher Hiba Khan is a Delhi-based multimedia freelance journalist who covers human rights, minority issues, and social injustice.)
Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.