In a significant development that upholds the rights of marginalised students to dissent and access education, the Supreme Court of India has granted relief to Dalit scholar Ramadas K.S., who had been suspended by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai. The suspension was originally imposed in April 2024 after Ramadas participated in a protest march against the National Education Policy (NEP) and the ruling BJP government. While the Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan did not annul the suspension order itself, it directed that its duration be curtailed to the period already undergone, effectively allowing the scholar to return to his academic work and complete his PhD. The Court’s order reflects a pragmatic, student-friendly approach that prioritises academic continuity over prolonged punitive action—especially when the matter has lingered without resolution for over a year.
The Case in Brief: From suspension to the Supreme Court
Ramadas K.S., a first-generation learner from a Dalit family in Kerala, first joined TISS in 2015 to pursue a Master’s in Media and Cultural Studies. In 2021, he enrolled in the integrated MPhil-PhD programme in Development Studies. His academic record earned him a National Fellowship for Scheduled Caste candidates in 2023, awarded by the Union Ministry of Social Justice following his successful performance in the UGC-NET examination.
In April 2024, Dalit PhD scholar Ramdas was suspended for two years by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), sparking widespread concern about academic freedom and political expression on Indian campuses. The disciplinary action was triggered by his participation in a protest against the BJP government and the National Education Policy during a Parliament March in Delhi, organised under the banner of the Progressive Students’ Forum–TISS (PSF–TISS). The institute claimed that by using the name “TISS” in posters and slogans, Ramdas had given the impression that the institute endorsed the protest, thereby bringing it into disrepute.
The institute also cited past instances of activism, including an overnight protest outside the TISS Director’s residence and a social media post encouraging students to watch Ram Ke Naam, a documentary critical of Hindutva politics. According to TISS, this pattern of “repetitive misconduct” and prioritising political activity over academics justified the suspension. Ramdas, who was on a scholarship from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, also had his fellowship withheld.
In May 2024, Ramdas challenged the suspension before the Bombay High Court, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights, particularly his freedom of expression and association. However, in a verdict delivered in March 2025, the High Court upheld the suspension, stating that while Ramdas had a right to his political views, he had crossed the line by linking those views with the institute’s name. The judgment has since raised alarm among student groups and civil society over its implications for dissent in academic spaces. Pursuant to the judgment delivered by the High Court, Ramdas had moved the Supreme Court.
Detailed analysis of the Bombay HC order may be read here.
Before the Supreme Court: Arguments and considerations
At the Supreme Court, the petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate and Former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court Dr. S. Muralidhar, who pressed for immediate relief and reinstatement. As per LiveLaw, the counsel had argued that the disciplinary proceedings lacked fairness and transparency, and that the two-year suspension imposed on a student nearing the completion of his PhD would irreparably harm his academic career. It was submitted that a student’s future should not be sacrificed for alleged procedural lapses, especially when adequate time had passed and there had been no recurrence of misconduct.
On the other side, Advocate Mr. Rajeev K. Pandey represented TISS. According to the report of LiveLaw, the institute maintained that it had acted within its rights, asserting that the Code of Conduct was binding on all students, and that institutional autonomy in disciplinary matters should be respected by the courts. TISS did not appear to offer any concessions during the hearing, nor did it appear inclined to revoke the suspension voluntarily.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning: Pragmatism over prolonged punishment
The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, took a notably restrained and equitable approach. In its brief but effective order, the Court consciously chose not to delve into the factual or legal merits of the suspension or the underlying allegations. Instead, it focused on the broader question of what justice required at this stage.
Acknowledging that more than a year had passed since the suspension order, the Court observed that “interest of justice would be best served if the said order does not continue to operate any longer.” This key observation, reported by LiveLaw, reflects a pragmatic judicial philosophy: once sufficient time has elapsed, and where the balance of convenience shifts in favour of a student’s rehabilitation, the punitive aspect of suspension should not be allowed to frustrate academic aspirations.
The Bench further noted that their intervention was being made without expressing any opinion on the original suspension decision or on the validity of the High Court’s ruling. This hands-off approach allowed the Court to grant relief without undermining the autonomy of the educational institution or setting a precedent of judicial overreach in disciplinary matters.
“Without examining the claims and counter-claims on merits, we feel that TISS having suspended the petitioner on 18th April, 2024 and lapsing of more than a year since then, interest of justice would be best served if the order of suspension is not continued further and he be permitted to pursue the PhD course in TISS” the Court stated in its order.
The complete order may be viewed here.
Final directions of the court
Accordingly, the Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- The suspension order dated 18 April 2024 was set aside prospectively, i.e., it would no longer remain in operation from the date of the Supreme Court’s order.
- Ramadas was permitted to resume his PhD course at TISS with immediate effect.
- He was directed to “faithfully observe the Code of Conduct” of the institution during the remainder of his academic tenure.
- The institute was granted liberty to take appropriate action should there be any further breach of conduct in the future.
Why this order matters
This ruling is important on multiple counts. First, it signals the judiciary’s role in protecting students from unnecessarily harsh and extended disciplinary actions that could cause disproportionate harm. The Supreme Court chose not to scrutinise the conduct allegations or institutional procedures in depth. Instead, it applied a time-sensitive, equity-based lens, recognising that the ultimate objective of educational discipline must be reformative—not vindictive.
Second, the case shows a subtle but important rebalancing of power between students and universities. While the Court did not curtail the institution’s authority to impose discipline or to revisit misconduct in the future, it sent a clear message: institutional autonomy cannot become a shield for actions that deny students the opportunity to complete their education, particularly when the situation is remediable and the student expresses a willingness to comply with norms.
Third, the decision upholds a compassionate and constructive vision of higher education. It recognises that students are not beyond redemption and that access to education is a fundamental pathway for growth, especially in a public institution like TISS, known for its role in nurturing social science scholarship and public service.
Reactions and significance of the verdict
The Supreme Court’s intervention has been widely hailed by student and rights-based organisations as a critical reaffirmation of campus democracy and educational equity. The Dalit Shoshan Mukti Manch (DSMM) and Jati Ant Sangharsh Samiti-Maharashtra (JASS) welcomed the verdict as a corrective to the “arbitrary” and “discriminatory” action of the TISS administration.
In a joint statement, they described the verdict as a “victory for student rights” and a strong message in favour of protecting the rights of students from marginalised communities who voice dissent against state policies. “Denying education to students is not merely a personal setback—it’s a fundamental rights issue,” they asserted.
As per a report of The Wire, Ramadas echoed this sentiment in a heartfelt Facebook post following the verdict, stating:
“On the 366th day of legal proceedings since approaching the High Court, I am officially a student again – from today – at the very institution that denied me education 380 days ago. This fight was never just about one student. It was about the fundamental rights of many and the soul of campus democracy.”
“Surviving in a city like Mumbai without access to education and financial support is not easy, but challenging the suspension was the only way forward. I’m happy that I can now return to my studies,” he told EdexLive.
He also expressed solidarity with student struggles at other universities including Jamia Millia Islamia, Jadavpur University, and Ambedkar University Delhi.
Ramadas acknowledged the significance of this solidarity, “I’m grateful for the support I received from the student community, including those at TISS and various student organisations across India. Human rights activists, writers, journalists, and others in civil society all stood in solidarity with me. It meant a lot.”
However, he also emphasised the darker side of his battle. “I cannot forget the cyberbullying and slander campaigns that took place, and the threats I received in different languages. I hope this ends now,” he added, while speaking to EdexLive.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order in Ramadas KS’s case is an instructive example of judicial pragmatism and humaneness. Without interfering with the autonomy of academic institutions or opening a floodgate for challenges to disciplinary actions, the Court crafted a path that allowed a student to return to his studies without formally ruling on the merits of the dispute.
In a time when student rights and institutional discipline often find themselves in conflict, this judgment reminds us that the pursuit of justice sometimes lies not in prolonged legal battles, but in timely, balanced, and forward-looking solutions.
Related:
Revoke suspension of Dalit scholar, Ramadas: TISS action condemned
Dissent Under Siege: Police action, suspensions, and the shrinking democratic space at TISS
2025 NCERT Textbooks: Mughals, Delhi Sultanate out; ‘sacred geography’, Maha Kumbh in