Bombay High Court upholds suspension of Dalit PhD student from TISS for ‘Anti-national activities’

The Bombay High Court on March 12 upheld the two-year suspension of Dalit PhD student Ramadas K S from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) for allegedly engaging in “anti-national activities.”

The court dismissed Ramadas’s plea, which sought to overturn the institute's decision, stating that the suspension did not suffer from any "illegality or perversity."

The suspension stemmed from Ramadas's participation in a protest against the central government’s “anti-student policies” in New Delhi. He was also accused of promoting the provocative documentary Ram Ke Naam during the Ayodhya Ram temple consecration ceremony.

TISS contended that by participating in the protest under the banner of its student organization, Ramadas had created an impression that the institute supported the politically charged views he expressed, damaging the institution's reputation.

In its ruling, the court emphasized that while Ramadas had the right to hold political views, he overstepped by associating his activism with TISS, a stance the court deemed unacceptable. "The protest was politically motivated," the bench of Justices A S Chandurkar and M M Sathaye stated, reinforcing the institute's position that such actions could not be condoned under the institution's banner.

Ramadas, in his appeal, had argued that the suspension was arbitrary and unfair, particularly as it led to the cessation of his scholarship, placing him in a precarious financial situation. He also expressed concern about the fairness of the internal appeal process, claiming that he may not receive a fair hearing from the committee established within the institute.

TISS countered that Ramadas had alternative remedies available to challenge the suspension within the institution, and that his participation in the protest was not aligned with the values of the academic body. The court sided with the institute, reiterating that the suspension order was lawful and that there was no merit in the petition.

This ruling underscores the complex tension between individual academic freedom and the power of institutions to protect their image, raising critical questions about the role of universities in political discourse and the extent to which student activism can align with institutional values.