Campus politics in India can get intensely passionate, and the recent JNU episode is a classic example of navigating free expression versus institutional boundaries. On January 6, 2026, the administration condemned provocative slogans against PM Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah raised by 30-35 students near Sabarmati Hostel the previous evening. The chants came right after the Supreme Court's denial of bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, and were seen as potential contempt of court.
JNU's stance is firm: universities must not turn into "hate labs," allowing freedom of speech but drawing the line at violence, incitement, or anti-national activities. They've filed a police complaint and warned of severe actions like immediate suspension, expulsion, or permanent debarment. JNUSU president Aditi Mishra defended the slogans as ideological criticism of perceived fascism, referencing historical events rather than personal attacks. This echoes the 2016 sedition controversy.
Personally, I believe healthy dissent is democracy's lifeblood, but when it crosses into hate or disruption, evidence-based discipline is necessary to protect the academic environment. It's a delicate balance that institutions must maintain for constructive discourse.
TL;DR
- JNU condemned objectionable slogans targeting Modi and Shah chanted by students on January 5 evening.
- Around 30-35 students involved near Sabarmati Hostel post Supreme Court bail rejection announcements.
- Slogans viewed as possible contempt of court prompting police complaint.
- Strictest penalties promised including suspension, expulsion, or permanent debarment.
- Emphasised campuses cannot become hate labs; free speech allowed but not violence or unlawful acts.
- Zero tolerance for anti-national activities disrupting harmony or breaking law.
- JNUSU leader defended as ideological critique of fascism, not personal, citing 2002 references.
- Incident reminiscent of 2016 slogans controversy involving Kanhaiya Kumar and others.
- Administration committed to academic freedom without permitting provocation or hate.
- Response aims to enforce discipline while respecting boundaries of dissent through process.
