The Bombay High Court upheld the two-year suspension of Ramadas KS, a PhD student at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), for taking part in a protest against the national government and the National Education Policy (NEP). The politically motivated protest was held under the Progressive Students Forum (PSF)-TISS banner. A division bench consisting of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and M.M. Sathaye noted that the protest/march was politically motivated. The bench concluded, “The petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.”
The bench pointed out that TISS was right to conclude that Ramadas gave the impression that the opinions expressed in the rally were the institute’s opinions, which damaged its reputation.
“It is therefore clear as sunshine that the said march was politically motivated, which the petitioner participated in under the banner PSF-TISS. Therefore, the finding of the committee that he created an impression in general public that the politically motivated protest and views were the views of the respondent/institution TISS, is founded on material available on record and no fault can be found to that extent. This has brought disrepute to the institute in its view. Petitioner can have any political view of his choice, but so does the institute,” the court pronounced.
TISS issued a show-cause notice to Ramadas KS citing “misconduct” and “anti-national activity.” He was issued a show-cause notice for taking part in the “Parliament March” demonstration in New Delhi on 12th January 2024, where a poster produced by PSF included the name of the institute to indicate that it was a student group from there. Ramadas responded to the show-cause notice and following an investigation, his scholarship was revoked and he was suspended from TISS for two years.
According to the court, the petitioner acknowledged in his response to the show-cause notice that he took part in the “Parliament March” and used TISS and PSF in one of the posters. “The petitioner has full freedom of expressing his political view; but to do so under the banner of respondent institute is what is objected to by the institute,” it observed.
According to the institute’s honor code, the student agrees to refrain from offering opinions on any platform that could harm its reputation in the public eye. The court also underlined the same. It was argued that by employing TISS as a platform to convey his political beliefs, he had broken the aforementioned guideline. The petition objected to TISS’s consideration of his prior behavior in determining the extent of his punishment. The court stated that he was given adequate notice snd the institute’s assessment of his past conduct was not wrong.
“It is settled position of law that in any inquiry, once the delinquent is given sufficient notice about past conduct or antecedents and opportunity is given to the reply to the same, the past conduct can be taken as material consideration while arriving at the quantum of punishment. It is therefore clear that the institute can consider whether the Petitioner has committed previous violation of the code or other policy,” the court conveyed.
Ramadas admitted, the court added, that he and other students had spent the night outside the director’s residence and engaged in sloganeering. It stated that the director’s exercise of his or her rights and personal life was disrupted by this act. It mentioned that although TISS had previously taken a liberal stance against the petition because it had not taken any action, the institute did take his actions during the politically motivated event under the PSF-TISS flag seriously. The court pointed out that his acts were forbidden by the institute’s regulations, therefore the two-year ban was not excessive and his right to free speech was not infringed.
“The petitioner while enjoying the financial aid approved by the respondent/institute, participated in a clearly politically motivated protest in a student group under a banner having name PSF-TISS. Therefore the necessary effect of such conduct on the decision of the respondent institute about grant is bound to follow,” it declared.
Ramadas claimed that his suspension had been imposed without taking into account his justifications and petitioned the court in May 2024 to have it revoked. However, the court also highlighted, “In the facts and circumstances, We do not find this case as an outcome of any discrimination or against freedom of expression. This case is about involving the name of the institution in the expression of politically motivated thoughts and protests undertaken by the petitioner, a student. If such actions are prohibited under applicable rules, then the necessary consequences of the breach are bound to follow.”
