The National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR), a collective of lawyers, law students, and legal professionals from across India, has in a statement issued today, decried the recent Kerala High Court’s reiteration that dharnas, hunger strikes and satyagraha “have no place in a constitutional democracy, much less in academic institutions.” NAJAR has emphasised that non-violent dharnas (sit-ins) are democratic and lawful mechanisms for accountability when institutional remedies fail. In fact, various judgements of courts across the country have upheld this constitutional right as part of Article 19. The collective has urged the High Court to reconsider its position and uphold the constitutional right to peaceful protest of all citizens and students.
A brief background on the facts and legal proceedings:
Two days ago, on November 3, 2026, a Division Bench (DB) comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S., in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v Archana P.S. & Ors (W.A. 2276/2026), set aside a single judge’s interim order. The interim order had directed the university to accept the fees of 16 suspended students of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (Kalady, Ernakulam, Kerala) and let them appear for their exams. The appeal before the Division Bench (DB) was decided on grounds of pleadings and interim relief. In doing so, the DB quoted, and gave fresh life to, the 2017 observations in Dr Antony Thomas v V.M. Muhammed Rafique, to say that students engaging in such protest in an educational institution are liable to be expelled or rusticated.
The university has alleged that both obstruction and assault took place on August 13, 2026. Students on their part have disputed this, and an investigation is ongoing. NAJAR has stated that it takes no position on disputed facts and does not condone violence, if it has happened. But the issue of whether violence took place and whether peaceful protests have a place in a campus are entirely different questions, and the two must not be inter-twined. NAJAR believes that presenting non-violent campus protest as inherently ‘anti-democratic’ confuses peaceful agitation (for better facilities) or student rights with unlawful disruption and the same cannot be accepted.
Peaceful Protest in Academic Spaces is a Constitutional Right:
Article 19 (1) (a) and (b) under the Indian Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Nothing in the Constitution excludes dharna or satyagraha as forms of peaceful protest, and nothing suspends these rights when a citizen is a student or when the place is a university campus or academic institution. The Supreme Court has recognised peaceful protest as part of these freedoms, including in in the famed Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012), Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v Union of India (2018) and Amit Sahni v Commissioner of Police (2020).
Invoking Dr. Ambedkar to restrain peaceful protest is unfair:
On November 3, 2026; the Division Bench repeated the following observations of the Court in Dr. Antony Thomas v. V.M. Muhammed Rafique and others:
“Political activities like dharna, hunger strikes and other practices like Satyagraha have no place in a constitutional democracy, much less in academic institutions. Anyone indulging in the said activities in an educational institution would make himself liable to be expelled and/or rusticated. Educational Institutions are meant for imparting education and not politics. By their political ambition the political parties cannot hold to ransom the educational institution or the right of the civilized students to receive education.”
These observations apparently stem from Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s “Grammar of Anarchy”, wherein he had stressed that, where there are constitutional remedies available, there is no justification in adopting unconstitutional methods. However, says NAJAR, to misquote Dr. Ambedkar in such a skewed fashion, particularly in the context of student politics is nothing more than a futile attempt at stretching the clock of constitutionalism over institutional suppression. The whole ideation is problematic in manifold ways.
First, the above quoted passage is conditional. It says unconstitutional methods lack justification where constitutional methods are open. The relevant question is whether constitutional channels were actually open to these students, and the Court actually has not examined it on merit. When university authorities act arbitrarily, constitutional avenues inside the campus stand effectively shut. In such situations, peaceful protest is not a breakdown of law; it is the only remaining constitutional recourse to invoke administrative accountability.
Second, Dr. Ambedkar’s call to rely on constitutional remedies alone has to be read with the shift in his personal and political ideology pre and post adoption of the Constitution. The fact that in the pre-independence era, the people had to rely on both violent and non-violent means of protest against the colonial oppressors doesn’t vitiate the political reality of today, which many a times demand lawful means of protests including Satyagraha and dharna. In fact, more often it is the constitutional institutions that compel the citizens to adopt such means. Quoting Babasaheb, who himself led the Mahad Satyagraha in 1927, to justify a blanket ban on satyagrahas is selective. Equating non-violent protest with criminality distorts the original intention and warning.
Satyagraha and the role of student movements in India today:
Satyagraha was one of the methods of mass resistance during India’s freedom movement. It is difficult to call it ‘alien’ to constitutional democracy when this method, popularised by Gandhi himself, helped create one. Student movements, likewise, have shaped campuses in Kerala and the country, from the freedom struggle to later movements for rights and institutional reform. Back then, students boycotted colonial institutions and joined the Non-Cooperation and Quit India movements. In recent years, students have challenged sexist hostel curfews and caste discrimination on campus. After the NTA cancelled the NEET-UG exam amid paper leak allegations, students across the country peacefully took to the streets, following which Mr. Dharmendra Pradhan, former Union Education Minister, had to resign.
These movements are not ‘distractions’ from or ‘disruptions’ in education. They are how students and youth demand answers and accountability from educational institutions. To say that educational institutions are meant for imparting education and not politics is either political illiteracy or a much despicable attempt to isolate students from critical thinking and democratic expression.
NAJAR Re-affirms Right to Peaceful Organising and Protest:
NAJAR has emphasised that it believes that all students across campuses and learning spaces must have lawful channels to raise grievances, and institutions should answer reasonable grievances, rather than discipline or crack down on those who raise them. De-politicizing campuses strips students of their ability to question injustice and understand, reform social structures.
Belonging to a particular political ideology or refusing to tender an apology, or relying on matters yet to be evidentially ascertained, cannot be the reasons to shun protesting students from placing their reasonable grievances for institutional reforms, in a constitutionally democratic manner. Protesting peacefully does not make the students ‘less civilized’ or ‘unruly’.
Rather restricting the right to peaceful protest is a highly dubious attempt of subverting the progressive, democratic civic spaces in a state like Kerala, which is what it is today, thanks to democratic resistance, protests and the constitutional fights spearheaded by student and citizen movements!
Hence, the collective has also called upon the Sree Sankaracharya University to complete the enquiry promptly and fairly, in accordance with natural justice and proportionality. NAJAR has also urged that the 2017 observations of the High Court not be relied upon currently by the Kerala High Court to punish peaceful protests. Campus dissent must not be criminalised or treated as a threat to education.
Related:
Jamia’s Answer to Student Protest: Online exams, hostel closures and police detentions