Munish Kumar Gaur Advocate & Former Bureaucrat

At a time when India is steadily consolidating its position as a respected global power, commanding recognition across economic, strategic, and diplomatic spheres, it is both paradoxical and deeply concerning that certain publicly funded academic institutions most notably Jawaharlal Nehru University continue to be associated with recurring controversies that dilute their academic purpose and erode public confidence. This is not a critique of dissent, which remains intrinsic to any vibrant democracy, but rather a call to restore discipline, accountability, and clarity of purpose in institutions sustained by public funds.

Every student studying in a subsidised central university represents a tangible investment made by the nation. The fee structure at JNU even after revisions remains among the lowest in India’s higher education ecosystem. Hostel room rent, historically as nominal as ₹10–₹20 per month, now ranges between ₹300–₹600, accompanied by modest service charges. Yet, even after these revisions, the overall cost of education remains significantly lower than that of most public and private institutions. This affordability is underwritten by substantial public expenditure. Estimates indicate that the Government spends approximately ₹2 to ₹3 lakh per student annually. With a student strength of about 7,000–8,000, supported by nearly 600–700 faculty members and a considerable administrative and support staff, the annual budget of the university runs into several hundred crores, largely financed through the public exchequer. Such figures underscore a critical reality , higher education at JNU is not merely subsidised; it is heavily funded by taxpayers, thereby creating a corresponding obligation of accountability.

Universities are intended to be centres of learning, intellectual inquiry, and character formation not arenas for ideological indoctrination. Students enter these institutions to acquire knowledge, develop analytical thinking, and understand the complexities of law, governance, history, and society. They do not come to be swayed by political ideologies or to become instruments in broader political narratives. At a formative stage of life, where intellectual maturity is still evolving, the risk of being influenced by selective narratives and emotionally charged ideologies is significant. Without adequate experience and exposure, students may adopt rigid positions without fully appreciating their long-term implications. Such tendencies reflect not intellectual strength, but intellectual haste.

It is therefore imperative that students exercise restraint and cultivate the wisdom necessary to distinguish between right and wrong, fact and propaganda, and genuine dissent and motivated agitation. Political theories propagated within campuses often carry deeper motives shaped by established actors. Students must guard against becoming unwitting participants in such agendas. Education must precede ideology, and understanding must precede expression.

Certain incidents over the past decade have undeniably contributed to the erosion of institutional credibility. The 2016 controversy, in which slogans such as “Bharat tere tukde honge” were allegedly raised, led to legal proceedings involving individuals such as Kanhaiya Kumar and Umar Khalid. While the judicial process remains ongoing, the reputational impact on the institution was immediate and far-reaching. Similarly, events such as so-called “beef festivals” and repeated confrontational demonstrations have contributed to social tensions and raised serious questions regarding the responsible exercise of freedom within academic spaces. Regardless of eventual legal determinations, such episodes have adversely affected the perception of the institution in the public domain.

Another significant concern is the recurring disruption of academic functioning. Between 2014 and 2026, multiple phases of protests, strikes, and administrative stand-offs have led to substantial loss of instructional time. Academic calendars have been repeatedly disturbed, semesters delayed, and research schedules adversely affected. In several instances, weeks and even months of academic engagement have been compromised. The most affected are the serious students whose academic progression and research work suffer due to circumstances beyond their control. When learning is repeatedly interrupted, institutional quality inevitably declines.

There is also a growing perception that certain individuals prolong their stay within the university system through successive enrolments in academic programmes, sometimes facilitated by ideologically aligned networks. In such cases, the objective appears less about scholarship and more about sustaining a continuous political environment on campus. If this perception holds any truth, it raises serious concerns regarding the misuse of public resources and the distortion of academic priorities.

In this backdrop, it becomes necessary to initiate a reasoned discussion on structural reforms. One such measure could be the introduction of an upper age framework, around 30 years, for availing heavily subsidised university education, subject to limited and clearly defined exceptions for genuine research pursuits. The intent is not exclusion, but rationalisation, ensuring that public resources are utilised by those in the primary phase of academic development, rather than being indefinitely occupied.

Equally important is the need to regulate campus access. Universities cannot function effectively if they become porous spaces with unrestricted entry and unauthorised stay of outsiders. Concerns regarding the presence of non-students within campuses, particularly during periods of unrest, have been repeatedly raised. A structured and enforceable system governing entry, residence, and guest access is essential to maintain discipline, ensure safety, and prevent external interference in academic environments.

While freedom of speech remains a cornerstone of constitutional democracy, it is not absolute. Article 19(1)(a) must be read in conjunction with Article 19(2), which permits reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, and public order. Any activity or expression that transgresses these boundaries ceases to be protected dissent and enters the domain of irresponsibility. The misuse of constitutional freedoms to justify disruptive conduct ultimately undermines both the Constitution and the institution.

A more fundamental principle must now be acknowledged. Subsidy is not an unconditional right; it is a privilege accompanied by responsibility. Students who benefit from heavily subsidised education, hostel facilities, and institutional resources must conduct themselves in a manner befitting that privilege. If individuals engage in unruly or irresponsible behaviour, align with disruptive or unlawful tendencies, or promote narratives that weaken national unity and social harmony, then it becomes legitimate to question whether such benefits should continue without accountability.

Education is not merely a means of personal advancement; it is a societal investment. Those who receive it are expected to give back through knowledge, service, and constructive engagement. Universities must produce thinkers, professionals, and responsible citizens, not individuals driven by transient ideological mobilisation.

The State, in turn, bears the responsibility of ensuring that institutional discipline and academic integrity are preserved. This must be done with firmness, but always within the framework of law, guided by due process and constitutional safeguards. The objective is not suppression of thought, but restoration of academic purpose.

India stands at a defining moment in its developmental journey. Its global stature is rising, and its youth remain its greatest strength. The direction in which this youth is guided will shape the nation’s future. Universities must therefore return to their foundational role , spaces where learning is paramount, where debate is informed and balanced, and where freedom is exercised with responsibility.

Subsidy is a privilege. Education is a responsibility. And wisdom must precede activism. If this balance is not restored, the consequences will not merely be institutional they will be national.