Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Ambedkar University Over Student’s Expulsion And Alleged Harassment

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued a notice to B.R. Ambedkar University Delhi (AUD), seeking a response after a postgraduate student alleged “relentless harassment” following her expulsion for reportedly participating in protests. The student’s expulsion came after a one-year suspension, which had earlier been revoked following a court order. Justice Vikas Mahajan has listed the matter for hearing on October 9.

According to the plea, the issue began on March 1, when the second-year student emailed AUD students and the Proctor’s Office alleging bullying in a WhatsApp group. She stated that she received derogatory messages from an unknown number added after group settings were changed, causing her severe mental distress and suicidal thoughts. Screenshots of the messages were attached to the email.

Two days later, on March 3, a protest led by the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) took place at the AUD Karampura Campus, demanding action against the alleged bullies and accountability from the administration. The subsequent actions taken by the university administration prompted significant concern and dissatisfaction among the petitioners.

“The students who were trying to protect the girl were given a one-year suspension, while the students who were bullying her received only a six-month suspension. Later, the bullies’ parents were called in, and their suspensions were revoked,” said a parent of one of the suspended students.

The petitioners, however, remained suspended. “The university stated that disciplinary action has been taken against the students. These three students protested their suspension and questioned the administration’s reasoning, particularly why some students had their suspensions revoked. They also raised concerns about the discrepancy between suspensions of one year and six months. The students organized a protest, but the vice-chancellor and the proctor did not respond to their concerns,” the parent added.

The students moved to the High Court, asserting that the university’s decision had come without any show-cause notice, statement of charges, notice of disciplinary proceedings, or the opportunity for a reasonable hearing.

After the court’s directive, the university revoked the suspension pending a proctorial inquiry. The court also directed the students not to participate in any protest “directly or indirectly related with regard to the incident.”

However, the university expelled one of the students following a proctorial meeting, stating one of the reasons as her participation in another protest on April 21. The student, in response to the show cause notice, denied this claim. “This show cause notice has been issued to me on the basis of the allegation that I had participated in the protest on 21 April 2025. I submit that my presence on the campus after the revocation of my suspension was mostly concerned with catching up on academic work, because of the 42 days I was kept out of the campus without any explanation,” the student said.

“As this was only my second day back on campus, several students and juniors greeted me while I was briefly in that area. However, since they were actively participating in a university-wide class boycott, a call which was given by the elected student council, AUDSC, I decided not to participate actively,” the student wrote.

The university held a proctoral meeting justifying the expulsion by asserting that the student was given a reasonable opportunity to explain her participation in the protest, which was in full violation of the university’s order dated April 16.

The order stated: “After thorough deliberation on the case of the student regarding their participation in the protest on April 21, 2025, which was in violation of the University order dated April 16, 2025, and their behaviour during the proctorial board meetings held on April 9, 2025 and June 6, 2025, besides no remorse for their conduct, no acceptance of any guilt or expression of an apology, recommends the expulsion of the student from the university.”

“In all the correspondence that we have received, the rustication is said to have been done due to some social media post,” a parent claimed.