In yet another worrying instance of shrinking democratic space within academic institutions, a peaceful protest held outside the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in Mumbai on March 26, 2025 was met with swift police intervention and detentions. The protest, led by student groups and activists, was organised in response to the suspension of Dalit PhD scholar Ramdas Prini Sivanadan, whose case has drawn sharp criticism from academic and civil society groups across the country. The demonstration began around 5 pm on the said Tuesday, but within fifteen minutes, police personnel from the Trombay Police Station arrived and declared via loudspeaker that the protest was unauthorised.
This, despite the fact that the organisers had submitted a letter in advance, informing the police about the protest. “They still went ahead and began detaining students and protestors. A police complaint has now been registered against five to six of us, including myself,” said Shailendra Kamble, one of the protest organisers as per Free Press Journal. Though those detained were released later in the evening, the action has raised alarm over the criminalisation of peaceful student-led dissent. A day before the protest, the TISS administration had issued an advisory warning students not to participate—an action that one may see as pre-emptive intimidation.
The protest was sparked by the recent Bombay High Court decision that upheld TISS’s controversial decision to suspend Ramdas for two years. The administration had accused him of “repetitive misconduct” and allegedly participating in “anti-national” activities, including public criticism of the central government and involvement in protests against the New Education Policy (NEP). The court, refusing to intervene, stated that the petition lacked merit. But to many in the academic community, the suspension reflects a deeply troubling trend of institutional overreach and the silencing of critical voices, especially those from marginalised communities.
Progressive groups and student organisations have denounced both the suspension and the high-handed response to the protest as emblematic of a growing intolerance for academic freedom and dissenting opinion in higher education. They also demanded that Ramdas’s fellowship be reinstated, and that TISS reassert its commitment to democratic principles rather than stifle them.
The entire incident—marked by the administrative advisory, police clampdown, and criminal complaints—underscores a growing climate of fear within campuses that were once known for nurturing critical thought and political engagement. The treatment of Ramdas P.S., a Dalit scholar, and the suppression of those who came out in solidarity with him, raise serious questions about caste-based discrimination and the erosion of democratic rights in public universities. As TISS joins the growing list of institutions where dissent is punished and student activism is under surveillance or is criminalised, this case serves as a sobering reminder that the fight for academic freedom is far from over.
Bombay High Court upholds TISS student’s suspension over politically motivated protest: A closer look at the judgment
In a significant order with troubling implications for dissent in academic spaces, the Bombay High Court had upheld the suspension of Ramdas. Ramdas was debarred for two years by the institute for his participation in a demonstration against the BJP government and the National Education Policy (NEP), held under the banner of the Progressive Students’ Forum (PSF–TISS). The division bench comprising Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice M.M. Sathaye found merit in the disciplinary action taken by TISS, stating that the protest was “politically motivated” and that the student’s actions had brought disrepute to the institute.
The court’s ruling leaned heavily on the institute’s claim that by participating in the protest under a banner mentioning “PSF–TISS”, the petitioner created the public impression that the political views expressed during the protest were endorsed by the institute itself. The bench observed, “It is therefore clear as sunshine that the said march was politically motivated, which the Petitioner participated in under the banner PSF–TISS in a student group. Therefore, the finding of the Committee that the Petitioner 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.”
Ramdas, who had earlier completed a Master’s degree in Media and Cultural Studies from TISS and was pursuing his PhD on a scholarship from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, had been served a show-cause notice for participating in the “Parliament March” in Delhi on 12 January 2024. According to the institute, a poster released by PSF in connection with the march included the acronym “TISS”, creating the impression that it was an official representation. In his reply, Ramdas acknowledged his participation and admitted that “TISS” had been mentioned alongside PSF in a poster. Following an inquiry, the institute suspended him for two years and withheld his fellowship.
The court also examined a pamphlet circulated as part of the protest campaign which included slogans such as “Save India, Reject BJP” and accused the government of attempting to dismantle the public education system. The judges took particular issue with the fact that Ramdas expressed these political views while associating himself with the name of the institute. As the court stated, “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.”
Referring to the Honour Code that students are required to abide by, the court noted that students explicitly undertake not to “malign the name of the Institution by presenting views on any platform, tarnishing/damaging the name of the institution in the public domain.” The bench held that Ramdas had violated this code by expressing his political stance under the TISS banner.
Another dimension of the court’s ruling pertained to the institute’s consideration of Ramdas’s past conduct. The student had reportedly taken part in an overnight protest outside the TISS Director’s bungalow, where students engaged in sloganeering that, according to the court, interfered with the Director’s personal life and rights. Though TISS had not taken disciplinary action for that incident at the time, the court held that it was within the institute’s rights to take such past conduct into account when determining punishment. The bench remarked, “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.”
The judges further reasoned that the two-year suspension was not disproportionate, nor did it amount to a violation of Ramdas’s fundamental right to freedom of expression. Since his conduct was found to be in breach of institutional rules, the court stated that disciplinary action was justified. The judgment concluded with a pointed remark about his use of public funds: “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.”
In view of these observations, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the disciplinary decision of TISS.
The complete order may be read here.
Ramdas vows to approach Supreme Court, calls suspension a threat to campus democracy
Following the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of his plea against suspension, Ramdas announced that he will challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court. Speaking to the Free Press Journal, Ramdas expressed his dismay at the outcome, stating, “It is shocking that the Hon. Bombay High Court dismissed the case after more than 10 months of legal procedure. Once I evaluate the full judgment, I will take this matter to the Supreme Court of India.”
He stressed that the issue goes beyond his individual case, arguing that it has wider implications for student rights and democratic expression within universities. “I deeply understand that this case is not just about me, but about the fundamental rights of all students and campus democracy in India’s higher education system. I believe this case may set a wrong precedent for universities across India to target students who have independent opinions. This is a brutal violation of Freedom of Expression guaranteed by the Constitution of India,” he said.
The controversy surrounding Ramdas’s suspension had also sparked broader concern within academic circles. On October 4, 2024, an assistant professor at the TISS Hyderabad campus, Arjun Sengupta, joined a student-led protest in solidarity with Ramdas. The demonstration was organised by the Progressive Students Organisation (PSO) and the Ambedkar Students’ Association at the institute’s off-campus centre. Shortly after his participation and a speech expressing support for Ramdas—parts of which circulated widely on social media—Sengupta was issued a show cause notice by the administration.
This sequence of events underscores growing unease over shrinking space for dissent in academic institutions and the increasing scrutiny faced by both students and faculty who voice critical or oppositional views.
Background of the Case: Political targeting alleged behind TISS student’s suspension
The suspension of Dalit PhD scholar Ramdas from TISS had raised questions about the repression of political expression in academic spaces. Following his suspension on April 18, 2024, the Progressive Students’ Forum (PSF) alleged that the institute had acted in retaliation for Ramdas’s activism, particularly his participation in a protest march.
According to the PSF, the TISS administration served Ramdas a show-cause notice on March 7, 2024, citing his involvement in the Parliament March and his social media post urging students to watch Ram Ke Naam, a 1992 National Award-winning documentary by Anand Patwardhan that critiques the Hindutva campaign behind the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya. The institute reportedly labelled this encouragement as an “anti-national act,” which added fuel to accusations that his suspension was politically motivated.
In response, TISS justified the suspension by claiming it was a consequence of “repetitive misconduct over a period of time.” In a statement dated April 20, 2024, the administration alleged that Ramdas had increasingly prioritised political activities over academic responsibilities. “Throughout his tenure, Ramdas KS exhibited a shift in focus towards activities unrelated to his academic pursuits, engaging in events, protests, and other activities influenced by personal political agendas,” it stated. The administration added that despite “repeated verbal and written advisories” to focus on his academic work, Ramdas had failed to comply.
In May 2024, Ramdas filed a petition before the Bombay High Court challenging his suspension. He argued that the disciplinary action violated his fundamental rights, particularly his right to freedom of speech and association, as guaranteed by the Constitution. His petition contended that the institute had constructed a false narrative to punish him for his political beliefs and activism. In addition to seeking a revocation of the suspension order, Ramdas requested permission to return to campus, resume his academic activities, and receive his scholarship stipend, which had also been withheld.
Related:
SC: Recent judgment in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, what are police powers under section 173 (3) BNS?
India Is an Elected Dictatorship Where Constitutionalism Is Under Attack From Within