A student expelled by DU for six months was found guilty of writing anti-National Testing Agency graffiti on the walls of Delhi University’s North Campus. The institution defended this disciplinary punishment, which has generated a lot of discussion, by claiming that the student had no regret for her behaviour.
The case revolves around an MA student of the Russian language who allegedly participated in a protest against the NTA on July 31. The protest targeted the agency’s handling of the NEET-UG examination, which determines admissions to medical courses across India. Allegations of irregularities in the exam’s conduct were the crux of the students’ grievances.
The graffiti, described as slogans against the NTA, was part of a broader agitation by the Disha Students’ Organisation, a student group that the accused student is affiliated with. The university, after instituting an inquiry into the matter, found the student guilty of defacing public property with anti-NTA slogans. Initially, the student faced a two-month suspension for her involvement. However, following an extended inquiry, the punishment was escalated to expulsion for six months.
The DU Registrar signed a letter on November 18 outlining the university’s investigation’s conclusions over the student expelled by DU. According to the report, the student acknowledged that she was involved in the incident. She also said that her student group had a strategy in place that included the graffiti. The inquiry committee made it clear that the student didn’t express regret or shame for what she had done. She did not feel sorry or repentant about this act, according to the committee’s opinion, the letter said.
The committee therefore suggested a minimum six-month banishment for the student expelled by DU. During this time, the expulsion forbids the student from going to classes, taking tests, or engaging in any other institutional activity. The expelled student has categorically denied that her actions warranted such a severe penalty. She also accused the university of being selective in its disciplinary measures, arguing that similar acts by other students have not faced equivalent repercussions.
“Even those campaigning for the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections have been given a second chance,” she said, referencing a recent High Court case involving candidates defacing public property during election campaigns. In that case, the court directed candidates to pay for the restoration of defaced property but allowed the university to declare election results after the payments were made.
The student had previously approached the Delhi High Court to challenge her two-month suspension. However, delays in the hearing meant the case remained unresolved when the university escalated the punishment to expulsion. The student also expressed frustration with what she perceives as the university’s inconsistent handling of similar cases. “The university has been selective in its action, curbing my freedom of expression,” she said.
The Disha Students’ Organisation has condemned the university’s decision, calling student expelled by DU an attack on democratic rights. The group has organised protests demanding that the expulsion be revoked. They argue that the act of writing slogans should not warrant such a harsh penalty and that the university’s decision sets a dangerous precedent for stifling dissent on campus. The organisation also raised questions about the university’s priorities, pointing to the leniency shown to candidates in the DUSU elections.
The student expelled by DU ignited a contentious debate over freedom of expression, proportionality in disciplinary actions, and the role of dissent in academic spaces. While the university stands firm on its decision, claiming it acted in the best interest of institutional discipline, critics argue that the punishment undermines democratic values.
