The Bombay High Court upheld the two-year suspension of Ramadas KS, a PhD student at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), for participating in a protest against the national government and the National Education Policy (NEP). The protest, organised under the Progressive Students Forum (PSF)-TISS banner, was deemed politically motivated. A division bench, consisting of Justices A S Chandurkar and M M Sathaye, concluded that the protest was politically driven and dismissed the petition without any order as to cost. The court also noted that TISS was justified in its decision, stating that Ramadas’ participation in the rally gave the impression that the institute endorsed the views expressed, which tarnished its reputation.
The court further stated, “It is evident beyond doubt that the march was politically motivated, and the petitioner participated under the PSF-TISS banner. Therefore, the committee’s conclusion that he gave the impression to the public that the views expressed during the protest were those of TISS is based on the available evidence, and no fault can be found in that regard. This has damaged the reputation of the institute in its view. While the petitioner is entitled to hold any political views, the institute too has its own stance.”
TISS had issued a show-cause notice to Ramadas KS, accusing him of “misconduct” and engaging in “anti-national activity.” The notice was in response to his participation in the “Parliament March” demonstration in New Delhi on January 12, 2024, where a poster produced by PSF included the institute’s name, suggesting that it was a student group from TISS. After Ramadas responded to the show-cause notice and an investigation was conducted, his scholarship was revoked, and he was suspended from the institute for two years.
The court noted that the petitioner had acknowledged in his response to the show-cause notice that he participated in the “Parliament March” and used both TISS and PSF on one of the posters. “While the petitioner has the full freedom to express his political views, it is his use of the respondent institute’s banner that is objected to by the institute,” the court observed.
Under the institute’s honour code, students agree not to express opinions on any platform that may damage the institute’s reputation. The court emphasized this point, noting that by using TISS as a platform to express his political beliefs, the petitioner had violated this guideline. The petition also challenged TISS’s consideration of his past conduct in determining the severity of his punishment. However, the court stated that the petitioner had been given sufficient notice and that the institute’s evaluation of his past actions was justified.
“It is a settled principle of law that in any inquiry, once the accused is given adequate notice about past conduct or antecedents, and an opportunity to respond, such conduct can be considered when deciding the quantum of punishment,” the court explained. Therefore, it was clear that the institute was within its rights to take the petitioner’s previous violations of the code or other policies into account when determining his punishment.
The court also noted that Ramadas admitted to spending the night outside the director’s residence with other students, engaging in sloganeering. This, the court stated, disrupted the director’s right to personal privacy and freedom. While TISS had previously taken a more lenient approach, not acting on the matter earlier, the institute chose to take his involvement in the politically motivated event under the PSF-TISS banner seriously. The court emphasized that Ramadas’s actions were in violation of the institute’s regulations, and as such, the two-year suspension was not excessive. It also clarified that his right to free speech had not been infringed.
The court stated, “The petitioner, while benefiting from the financial aid provided by the institute, participated in a politically motivated protest under a student group banner that included the name PSF-TISS. Therefore, the institute’s decision regarding the grant is a natural consequence of such conduct.”
Ramadas argued that his suspension was imposed without proper consideration of his justifications and petitioned the court in May 2024 to have it overturned. However, the court emphasised, “In the given circumstances, we do not view this case as an issue of discrimination or a violation of freedom of expression. This case pertains to the petitioner’s use of the institution’s name to express politically motivated views and take part in protests. If such actions violate the applicable rules, the necessary consequences of the breach must follow.”
