Jawaharlal Nehru University has once again found itself at the centre of a political and legal storm after controversial slogans were raised on campus following a Supreme Court decision. The development has reignited long-running debates around student activism, freedom of expression, and respect for constitutional institutions.
The slogans, allegedly targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi, were raised shortly after the apex court denied bail to former JNU students Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The incident has drawn sharp reactions from political leaders, student groups, and observers, with the ruling party accusing sections of the campus of undermining the judiciary and national unity.
As reactions continue to pour in, the episode highlights the enduring ideological fault lines within India’s premier university campuses and the broader political discourse surrounding dissent, protest, and the rule of law.
Slogans Raised at JNU Sabarmati Hostel
According to sources, the slogans were raised late Monday night at Jawaharlal Nehru University’s Sabarmati Hostel. The activity reportedly took place between 9 pm and 10 pm, drawing attention from students and authorities alike.
The slogans were allegedly shouted by a group of individuals who gathered within the hostel premises. Sources indicated that office bearers of the Left-backed Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union were present at the location during the sloganeering.
The incident has since become a flashpoint, with different student groups offering sharply contrasting interpretations of what transpired.
Context of Supreme Court Bail Decision
The slogans followed the Supreme Court’s decision to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, both accused in a case linked to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots. The two have been in custody for over five years.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale held that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case against both accused. This, the court said, triggered the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
The judgment noted that, at this stage, the available evidence did not justify granting bail, particularly given the nature and gravity of the allegations.
What the Supreme Court Observed
While reading out its detailed judgment, the Supreme Court emphasised that bail decisions must be based on the specific role attributed to each accused. It clarified that all individuals named in the case could not be treated equally.
The bench observed that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stood on a qualitatively different footing compared to other accused. Their alleged involvement, the court said, extended to planning, mobilisation, and issuing strategic directions.
At the same time, the court granted bail to five other accused, underscoring the principle that each application must be assessed on its own merits.
Political Reaction From the BJP
The slogans at JNU drew a swift response from the Bharatiya Janata Party. Delhi Environment Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa questioned the propriety of protesting against a Supreme Court verdict.
He alleged that those involved had no respect for the country’s institutions and accused them of speaking against the Prime Minister and the nation itself. His remarks echoed the broader BJP narrative that sections of the campus harbour anti-national sentiments.
Party leaders have framed the incident as an attack not just on an individual leader but on the authority of the judiciary.
Role of the Left-Backed JNUSU
The Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union, currently backed by Left-aligned student groups, has historically played a prominent role in campus politics. Sources said that key office bearers were present at the Sabarmati Hostel during the sloganeering.
Supporters of the union argue that student activism is intrinsic to the university’s culture and that dissent should not be criminalised. Critics, however, accuse the union of encouraging provocative actions that invite controversy.
The incident has once again placed the JNUSU at the heart of a national political debate.
ABVP Announces Complaint
The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, the student wing affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, reacted strongly to the slogans. Its representatives alleged that objectionable statements were made against the Prime Minister, the RSS, and the ABVP.
ABVP leaders at JNU stated that they plan to file a formal complaint with the authorities, seeking strict action against those involved.
They maintained that such acts go beyond protest and amount to threats, demanding accountability and disciplinary measures.
Nature of the Controversial Slogans
According to sources, some of the slogans included references that were interpreted as direct threats rather than symbolic or metaphorical expressions. These references have become central to the outrage surrounding the incident.
Critics argue that such language crosses the line between dissent and intimidation. Supporters of free expression counter that slogans must be examined carefully to distinguish intent from provocation.
The differing interpretations have further polarised opinions both on and off campus.
Past and Present Faces of Campus Activism
Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were once part of a cohort of vocal student activists at JNU, alongside figures such as Kanhaiya Kumar and Shehla Rashid. Over the years, several of these individuals have moved on to different political paths.
The legacy of that period continues to shape perceptions of JNU as a hub of ideological contestation. For supporters, it represents vibrant debate; for critics, it symbolises disruptive politics.
The latest incident underscores how past associations still influence present narratives.
Legal Framework Under UAPA
The case against Khalid and Imam falls under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, one of India’s most stringent anti-terror laws. Section 43D(5) places a high threshold for granting bail.
The Supreme Court reiterated that when a prima facie case is established under this provision, courts must exercise caution. The intent is to balance individual liberty with national security concerns.
This legal context explains why bail decisions under UAPA often become flashpoints for public debate.
Bail Granted to Other Accused
In contrast to Khalid and Imam, the Supreme Court granted bail to five other accused in the same case. The bench carefully differentiated their alleged roles.
This distinction, the court said, was crucial to ensuring fairness in judicial assessment. It reaffirmed that collective labeling cannot replace individual evaluation.
The decision has been cited by both sides to support competing narratives about justice and due process.
Campus Politics and National Discourse
The JNU incident has once again brought campus politics into the national spotlight. Universities have long been spaces where political ideas are debated vigorously.
However, the intersection of student activism with sensitive legal cases often invites scrutiny and controversy. The challenge lies in balancing free expression with respect for democratic institutions.
This balance remains a contested issue in India’s evolving political landscape.
Debate Over Dissent and Democracy
Supporters of campus protests argue that dissent is a cornerstone of democracy and that universities must remain spaces for questioning authority.
Opponents contend that dissent must operate within constitutional boundaries and not undermine the judiciary or threaten elected leaders.
The slogans at JNU have thus become a symbol of a broader ideological divide over the meaning and limits of protest.
What Lies Ahead
With complaints likely to be filed and political rhetoric intensifying, the aftermath of the JNU sloganeering is expected to unfold over the coming days.
Administrative action, police scrutiny, and further political statements could shape the next phase of the controversy.
As the debate continues, the episode serves as a reminder of how campus events can quickly escalate into national political flashpoints.
Also Read: Maduro Capture Stuns China, Social Media Sees Taiwan Model
