Paul had been arrested on August 7, 2026, in connection with FIR No. 464/2026 registered at Trombay Police Station over an October 12, 2025, event at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). The FIR invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Maharashtra Police Act, with a maximum prescribed punishment of five years. The bail came after Paul spent more than a month in jail.

The case arose from a campus gathering organised to commemorate the death anniversary of former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba. According to the FIR, students participating in the event raised slogans including “Rest in power G.N. Saibaba” and slogans demanding the release of jailed activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Nine people were booked in connection with the incident, with Paul named as accused No. 3.

From campus slogans to allegations of Maoist links

The prosecution sought to portray the gathering as something far more serious than a student commemoration. It alleged that the event was part of a pre-planned conspiracy intended to create ideological divisions among TISS students and disturb law and order. It further alleged that Paul had deleted secret groups, WhatsApp chats and the Signal application from his phone and that he had threatened witnesses and police personnel.

The prosecution also relied heavily on material recovered from Paul’s mobile phone, including PDFs of books concerning Maoism. It argued that these materials demonstrated support for Maoist ideology and suggested the possibility of links with banned organisations. The police went further, alleging that documents relating to the Purba Bangla Maoist Party indicated the possibility of cross-border connections and a larger organised network. The Court, however, did not accept that an ideological or political inference could simply be converted into criminal culpability.

The Magistrate noted that the investigation had sought to connect Paul’s activities to threats against national unity and the possibility of creating hatred in society. Yet, after examining the material placed before it, the Court found no prima facie incriminating material establishing his involvement in activities against the nation. His membership of the Progressive Students Forum, participation in the commemoration and raising of slogans did not, by themselves, provide sufficient material to establish the alleged Maoist connection. Most significantly, the Court rejected the attempt to draw a Maoist connection merely from the presence of Maoist literature in digital form.

“The allegations against the accused as per FIR is prima facie of conducting activity of commemoration of death anniversary and slogan and during investigation, it appears that the investigating officer has made suspicious activities of the accused by connecting with nation and made suspicion that the possibility of creating hatred in the community and in the society. Therefore, the investigation was undertaken on the said aspect, however, prima facie there is no incriminating material on record to justify involvement of the accused against the nation and only because accused is member of Progressive Students Forum of TISS and participation in the activity of commemoration and the uttering slogans along with the investigation carried out by the investigating officer prima facie does not found supporting material that the accused has got benefit of social network and prima facie no material to connect the accused with the mind set of Maoist merely because of finding of pdf books the inference of connection with the mind set of Maoist cannot be drawn.” (Para 15)

Reading books is not evidence of criminal association

The order draws an important line between possession or study of literature and proof of participation in a banned organisation or criminal activity. Relying, among other things, on the Bombay High Court’s reasoning in Jyoti Chorge v. State of Maharashtra, the Magistrate noted that literature which is not itself banned cannot automatically become incriminating merely because of its ideological content. The Court recognised that students may read and collect material as part of their academic engagement and pursuit of knowledge, and that such conduct cannot, without more, establish participation in a Maoist or Naxal movement.

This distinction is crucial in the present case. The prosecution’s case sought to move from what Paul allegedly read, what slogans he allegedly raised and which student organisation he belonged to an inference about his ideological allegiance and, ultimately, his supposed threat to national unity. But the Magistrate found that the evidentiary bridge between those facts and the criminal allegations had not been established.

The Court specifically recorded that there was no material demonstrating that Paul had used social networks to obtain a benefit for, or establish a connection with, a banned organisation. Nor did the material placed before the Court establish that merely possessing the PDFs meant that Paul shared the “mind set” of Maoists.

Custody cannot continue on suspicion alone

The Court also considered the length and purpose of the investigation. Paul had initially obtained interim protection from arrest from the Sessions Court in October 2025, which continued for several months. His anticipatory bail application was ultimately rejected on August 7, 2026, after which he was taken into custody. His mobile phone and laptop had already been seized and he had been interrogated.

The Magistrate found that the investigating agency had already been given sufficient time to investigate the allegations. In the Court’s assessment, the subsequent custodial interrogation had not produced material capable of establishing the alleged Maoist or anti-national connection.

“It is material to note that while consideration of ABA 2071 of 2025 and the aspect of involvement of the accused in the light of investigation was considered and the application of the accused was rejected for custodial interrogation to extract truth, however, prima facie except suspicion there is no material to link the activities of the accused with mindset of Maoist or against the nation or associating with banned organization against the India. The interrogation against the accused is carried out for sufficient period and in such circumstances, no further custody of the accused is required, therefore, in such circumstances, in comparative to the order passed in favour of accused Kamakhya Das by the Hon’ble High Court, the present accused has made out ground to release him on bail with imposing conditions to monitor the activities of the accused and safeguard the objection of prosecution.” (Para 17)

The Court consequently held that further custody was not required. It also took note of the Bombay High Court’s August 14, 2026, order granting protection to co-accused Kamakhya Das in connection with the same allegations. The High Court had, prima facie, considered whether participation in the event and the alleged slogans constituted an offence and granted protection subject to conditions, including attendance before the police for investigation.

Keeping him behind bars would not be just

The Magistrate also placed weight on Paul’s age and educational circumstances, observing that continued incarceration in the absence of incriminating material could adversely affect his career. The Court concluded that, where the investigation had had sufficient time and the material before it remained at the level of suspicion, keeping the young accused behind bars would not be just.

Paul has accordingly been granted bail on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh, with one or two sureties of the same amount. He was also directed to furnish provisional cash security of ₹1 lakh for two weeks and report to the DCB CID Unit-06 every Wednesday between 10 a.m. and noon until the filing of the chargesheet. The order also imposes conditions against influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, committing a similar offence and leaving India without the Court’s permission.

The order is, of course, confined to the question of bail and does not amount to a final determination on the merits of the prosecution case. The Magistrate expressly clarified that the prima facie observations made while deciding the bail application should not influence the final adjudication of the case.

Yet the reasoning is consequential. At least at the stage of bail, the Court has refused to treat political or ideological suspicion as a substitute for evidence. The presence of Maoist literature on a student’s device, participation in a campus commemoration, membership of a student forum and the raising of slogans may invite investigation, but they cannot, without supporting material, automatically establish association with a banned organisation or an offence against the nation.

The complete order may be read below:

Related:

They Asked Questions. Then Came the Assault: Shaheen & Nafeesa Khan | Teesta Setalvad

Satya Niketan Collapse: When students and neighbours had to rescue students from a system that had failed them

Days of Demands, Hours of Protest: Swatantra Bhardwaj finally detained in assault case

The post Ex-TISS student gets bail as Mumbai Court rejects Maoist link based on ‘suspicion’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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:

1. 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.
2. Ramadas was permitted to resume his PhD course at TISS with immediate effect.
3. He was directed to “faithfully observe the Code of Conduct” of the institution during the remainder of his academic tenure.
4. 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

The post “Let the Suspension Not Continue Further”: Supreme Court allows Dalit scholar to resume PhD at TISS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We are writing this letter, as members of ALIYSA (All India Inquilabi Youth and Students Alliance) to express our deep dismay and anguish at the recent eviction notices sent to at least 12 PhD scholars to vacate the TISS Mumbai campus in 24 hours, issued from your office. We demand your immediate intervention, in a fair manner, to withdraw these eviction notices and ensure a dignified stay and completion of studies for these PhD students of TISS.

ALIYSA is an All-India non-partisan alliance of students and youth who have come together through NAPM (National Alliance of People’s Movements) to build solidarity for justice and equity for the youth and students across India. Coming from varying backgrounds of privileges and marginalisations, we stand beside every young person facing discrimination and injustice.

As a premier social sciences institute, TISS is considered a progressive institution in the country, with a legacy for upholding social justice values, both academically and institutionally. However, in the past decade, multiple such issues have come up where TISS has failed to ensure a just academic environment. Through academic and grassroots work, causes of social justice can be furthered and the values imbibed in our Constitution upheld. Students in university spaces and educational institutes have faced injustice and exclusion multiple times in recent years.

We are pained to know that the recent eviction notices are an addition in this spree of arbitrary actions where PhD scholars are being unfairly targeted. They have been asked to move out of the campus without appropriate notice or intimation. It was only some time back that the students had requested the administration for an extension to complete their thesis writing till September, to which your administration had agreed.

In a statement, you have claimed that scholars have taken beyond 5 years of time in completing their doctoral work. However, it is common knowledge that between 2019 to 2020, the students were off campus for over two years due to the COVID lockdown. Thus, they have only spent 3.5 years on the campus during their doctoral work. Further, as an old academic institution, TISS administration must be well-aware of the rigorous demands of a PhD program, that often extend beyond 5 years. Your statement comes across as a blame on students for taking more than 5 years.

We also want to highlight that most of the scholars who have been served with these notices come from vulnerable communities — SC, ST, OBC, De-notified and Nomadic Tribes. The costs involved in higher education at TISS are not easily affordable for all the students and hence the issue of pending balances cannot be pinned down on students. TISS states in its vision that it works for a “…just society that promotes and protects dignity, equality, social justice and human rights for all”.  It seems that the recent notices are instead violating these values for the scholars from vulnerable communities.

Several scholars who are served the notices have been active in critically questioning  actions of the administration

It is a struggle for students to reach university spaces to realise their dreams. When they succeed in that, a treatment of this sort breaks them and their dreams. Without giving prior intimation, serving such notices and only providing 24 hours to vacate the campus is beyond reason and any measure of the principles of natural justice. Educational institutions are meant to undo historical injustice faced by students from marginalized backgrounds and not perpetrate them further through such arbitrary actions.

Just a month ago, your institute had issued a mass termination notice to over 100 teaching and non-teaching staff across your four campuses which was retracted after the strong public condemnation. The recent notices after such mass termination are not just concerning but deeply disturbing.  They put a question mark on the future of students at this ‘premier’ institute.

It has also come to our notice that several scholars who are served these notices have been active in critically questioning the actions of the administration in the past. In light of this, the notices to these students look like motivated targeting of the politically conscious and articulate students and this depicts the anti-democratic nature of your administration.

Your public notice also states that it was merely a ‘request’ after ‘letting the scholars overstay in the campus with free meals, not paying semester fees and not completing their thesis work as well’. However, this claim is unsubstantiated, since several students who have received notices have been paying for availing these facilities.

You have been unfairly accusing students of ‘defaming the reputation of your institute and being politically motivated’. However, it is such arbitrary decisions and acts of repression on the student community that precipitate the situation and contribute to the downfall of the spirit and reputation of TISS.

We, at ALIYSA, strongly condemn the eviction notices and demand their immediate retraction. The students must be allowed a dignified graduation from PhD.

We look forward to your immediate intervention and fair, necessary action in this regard. Jai Samvidhan!

Click here for signatories 

Courtesy: CounterView

The post TISS authorities ‘targeting’ Adivasis, Dalits: Eviction notice to PhD scholars appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The charges leading to his suspension also include encouraging others to watch “Ram Ke Naam,” a national award-winning documentary.

“Such a pseudo-nationalistic evaluation of students by the TISS administration can only be viewed as an attempt to crush the voices of dissent against the BJP-Sangh Parivar, “says a statement issued by the forum today. “As a first-generation learner, Ramadas has consistently and unequivocally defended student rights in campus. He has worked hard to build joint platforms and alliances among all student organizations.”

Ramadas also represents the ‘United Students of India’, the joint platform comprising of 16 major student organizations across the country. The targeting of students by the TISS administration appears to be nothing more than an attempt to appease the ruling BJP.

Victimising a student from Dalit background also aligns with the BJP’s broader project to exclude students from marginalized communities from higher education. Such actions undoubtedly tarnish the independent academic credibility of the institute. The USI stands in solidarity with Ramadas, as well as other progressive students at TISS, in their fight against this unjust action, says the statement.

The forum has also reminded the institution that such attempts always fail. Besides demanding a withdrawal of the suspension, the organisation has urged all other like-minded student organisations and the democratic section of the country to come forward to resist this attack on democracy.

Among the signatories are Prasenjit for the United Students of India (AISA) Dinesh Seerangaraj (AISF) Amit Singh (AISB) Priyanka Bharti (CJRD) Anurag Nigam (CYSS) Prince Ennares Periyar (Dravidian Students Federation) CVMP Ezhilarasan (DMK Student wing) Anagha Pradeep (DSF) Nitish Gaur (NSUI) Lagan Mangla (PSF) Nowfal Md. Saifulla (PSU) Dr. Imran (Samajwadi Chhatrasabha) Devabrata Saikia (Satro Mukti Sangam Samiti) Aravind B (Students’ Federation of Dravidians) Mayukh Biswas (SFI) and Sujit Tripura (TSU)

The post Revoke suspension of Dalit scholar, Ramadas: TISS action condemned appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ramadas’s suspension has created an uproar in the student fraternity. He was also formerly the general secretary of the Progressive Students’ Forum (PSF) at TISS Mumbai.

A student Sabrang India spoke to narrated the arrival of the suspension letter. As per the student, the charges against Ramadas are for participation in a protest march at Jantar Mantar. Ramadas was a coordinator and speaker for the march titled Parliament March which was organised by Opposition leaders and the student coalition, United Students of India in January 2024. Additionally, he was also charged for making a Facebook post recommending people to watch Anand Patwardhan’s acclaimed documentary, Ram Ke Naam.

Sabrang India spoke to a student on ground who stated that the order has suspended the student and barred them from entering each of TISS’ campuses, located in Mumbai, Hyderabad, and Tuljapur, for two years.  The university has stated that these actions are not in the interest of the nation or the university. “It seems like TISS does not want to permit students to have personal opinions,” the student told Sabrang India.

The Progressive Students’ Forum, an organisation in TISS, released a statement on the suspension, and marked it as a grave threat against students, “If a student dares to express their opinion publically, they will be hunted down by the administration and labelled ‘anti-national’—especially if the student comes from a marginalised background—so much for an Institute that takes pride in its academic excellence and freedom.”

The statement also accuses the TISS administration of prioritising to take out such actions against anti-government protests, instead of improving the hostel conditions and other infrastructural facilities. It has termed this step as an “an open warning to all students of TISS against organising and calling out the anti-student policies of the administration.”

This is not the first time TISS has been criticised for curbing freedoms. In January 2024, students at TISS, Mumbai were troubled after they witnessed a bar on lectures, seminars, and other activities on campus, after a notice was issued by the institution in January where the TISS administration prohibited students from organising any events until additional guidelines are provided by the institute. According to the Free Press Journal, there were no such guidelines issued by the university even after two months of the order. TISS Mumbai had also barred all protests against the Ram Temple inauguration in Uttar Pradesh in January this year.

Related:

Hindutva enters Mumbai college campuses- Gaushala, Shobha Yatra in IIT B, restriction to freedom of speech at TISS

Booked for Sedition at LGBTQ rally, two former TISS students get protection from arrest

Progressive Students’ Forum raises concern over TISS registrar’s ‘communal’ social media posts

The post TISS suspends student for protesting against government, posting on Facebook appeared first on SabrangIndia.