‘Suspended for speaking up’: Hansraj College’s crackdown leaves 1 student still fighting

Parth Srivastava had questions about how his college spent its money. He filed RTIs and posted videos online. For that, he claims, he was suspended. He is now the last of 26 students still suspended at Hansraj College, and his case has reached the Delhi High Court.

Hansraj College suspended the 26 students through four separate notices between April 20 and April 25, citing either of two broad reasons: violence and indiscipline during the annual college fest on April 8, and allegedly defamatory social media posts and acts harmful to the academic environment. The college also filed an FIR against some of the students over violence. 

Twenty-five suspensions have since been revoked. All except Parth’s. He claims he had merely questioned how the college used its funds and its campus, including for the principal’s son’s wedding. 

Before suspensions, an SOP against ‘defamatory content’

Seven students were suspended on April 23, some of them for social media posts called defamatory by the administration. 

One student said they had posted videos questioning the use of college property to organise the wedding of the principal’s son, the administration’s response to student demands, and misogynistic remarks the principal allegedly made to female protesters who were seeking a revision in the fest schedule. In a meeting with the college disciplinary committee, the student claimed their social media clips were shown.

Another student claimed they had merely posted about the wedding and the fest. 

Days before the suspensions and in the wake of a controversy over the use of campus premises for private events, the college had uploaded a Standard Operating Procedure on April 1. It prohibited students from speaking to the media without prior permission, posting defamatory content on social media, and recording meetings or administrative discussions. It cited Ordinance XV(b) of the Delhi University, which deals with the powers of the university and colleges under it to frame rules for discipline.

However, Delhi-based lawyer Kawalpreet Kaur said the SOP for Hansraj College “imposes sweeping, vague, and disproportionate restrictions on student speech that are difficult to justify under constitutional standards. By prohibiting recording, media interaction, and broadly defined ‘defamation’ or ‘damage to reputation,’ it effectively creates a prior-permission regime that chills dissent and suppresses legitimate critique, especially within a university space that should function as a site of debate and political engagement.” 

Parth’s lawyer Shaurya Vikram noted that Delhi University itself stated in 2023 that it cannot regulate staff social media activity. “If the university has given that statement for staff, does the same not apply to students?”

‘Simply our voice raising questions’

Parth was suspended on April 20. A former president of the BA Philosophy students’ union at Hansraj College, he had filed a writ petition on April 23 challenging his suspension. The Delhi High Court issued notices to Hansraj College, the University Grants Commission, and the Vice-Chancellor of Delhi University. The next hearing is scheduled for the second week of May.

The petition argues that the suspension violates Parth’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution – the rights to equality, free speech, and life and dignity. It also challenges the legitimacy of the body that suspended him: the Special Core Sub-Discipline Committee, which, the petition argues, does not appear in any statute or ordinance of Delhi University.

Parth says there was a build-up to the suspension.

On February 9, students gathered to protest after the principal used college premises to organise her son’s wedding function. Parth was among those who criticised the administration on an online platform. 

Between February 12 and 16, Parth filed multiple RTIs seeking information on fee utilisation, faculty data, structural audits, NIRF rankings, and the permission granted for the private event. On February 17, he claimed he received a disciplinary notice with no charges specified.

He claimed that he asked for the disciplinary proceedings resulting from the notice to be recorded, but no response came. A second notice, also without charges, arrived on March 18, he claimed.

He then attended a disciplinary meeting on March 23 and noticed that the college maintained a record of his social media activity. “They said they would provide the minutes but did not. During the meeting, they showed du.today posts from February 9. I also saw a folder with other videos of mine and screenshots,” he claimed. 

The RTI responses received by Parth detailed the college funds. In 2024–25, the college collected Rs 11,12,070 as student medical fee; expenditure was nil. Across all sectors, it collected Rs 3,37,89,001 against an expenditure of Rs 98,18,303, leaving a balance of Rs 2,39,70,698 under the student welfare and union fund heads.

In response to his RTI on the wedding permission, the college cited a 2018 ruling by the Haryana State Information Commission and said that residents or staff members living in college quarters are customarily entitled to use college premises.

On March 31, he filed a complaint before the Central Vigilance Commission. On April 20, his suspension letter arrived, citing indiscipline, defamation, and derogatory language. He claimed he filed a petition a day after the administration did not allow him to meet the principal.

Parth claimed some of the RTI replies accused him of “playing the CAG” and that the volume of information sought would slow down the college’s workflow. “These are simply our voices raising questions about what is happening with the college funds. I will wait for my next hearing.”

His lawyer, Shaurya Vikram, claimed, “The suspension order is illegal and reflects administrative malice. They are trying to single out Parth. A suspension issued without charges, without evidence, and without disclosure of the committee’s jurisdiction cannot be regarded as a lawful disciplinary measure.”

The fest violence and the FIR

Eighteen students were suspended over clashes during the college fest and indiscipline. An FIR was filed on April 24 against 17 students, including some from another college, under sections of BNS 2023 covering hurt, criminal trespass, and wrongful restraint. The complainant was Dr Vinod Kumar Mayala, convener of the Students’ Welfare and Discipline Committee.

Several suspended students said they had not been contacted by police.

Then two more suspension notices named 11 more students. These included four student union office bearers who were suspended on April 25 for allegedly failing to control the situation.

DCP North Raja Banthia said, “We received a complaint from the principal of Hansraj College. The students involved are from Hansraj College and Kirori Mal College. The charges include hurt, trespassing, and restraint. Further investigation is underway.”

‘Want to send a message to students’

The principal of Hansraj College, Dr Rama Sharma, said, “We took this action because it could create a negative academic environment. The role of the student union is to resolve issues but they are not doing that. We also informed the SHO. We reviewed the CCTV footage and found that outsiders had entered the fest. In this reel era, students share instant reactions that can defame the college’s image. They can come and talk to us.”

Vinod Kumar Mayala, the complainant, earlier said, “We just want to send a message to students.” A questionnaire about the students’ allegations has been mailed to him. This report will be updated if a response is received.

We take no ads, bow to no government or corporation, and answer only to you, the reader. This Press Freedom Month, pay to keep news free.