New Delhi: A fresh controversy has erupted at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) after a protest on campus on Monday saw students allegedly raising provocative slogans against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah. The incident has sparked a sharp exchange of statements between the university administration and the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU), reflecting the ongoing tension over freedom of expression, disciplinary action, and the political climate on campus.

The JNU administration on Tuesday condemned the slogans, stating that universities are meant to be “centres for innovation” and cannot be “permitted to be converted into laboratories of hate.” In a post on the university’s official social media channel X, the administration said it would take the strictest action against students involved, warning that disciplinary measures could include immediate suspension, expulsion, or permanent debarment.

“The Jawaharlal Nehru University administration has vowed the strictest action against students found raising objectionable slogans against Hon’ble Prime Minister and Hon’ble Home Minister. An FIR has already been lodged in the matter,” the post read. However, police officials clarified that a formal FIR had not yet been registered.

The administration emphasized the need to balance fundamental rights with law and order, stating, “Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right. But any form of violence, unlawful conduct, or anti-national activity will not be tolerated under any circumstances.” The statement came after a protest organized by students in response to the Supreme Court’s denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.

The university had earlier written to the Delhi Police, alleging that the slogans raised at the event were “highly objectionable, provocative, and inflammatory.” The letter claimed that the slogans displayed “wilful disrespect for constitutional institutions and established norms of civil and democratic discourse.” Several students, including the current JNUSU president Aditi Mishra, were named as participants in the event.

In response, the JNUSU issued a strongly worded statement, accusing the administration and media of attempting to “defame the institution and intensify the persecution of students.” According to the union, the Monday vigil was held to commemorate the attacks on the campus that occurred on January 5, 2020, and to highlight what they called a “pattern of injustice” targeting Sabarmati Hostel, which was a focal point during the 2020 violence.

“JNUSU had organized a vigil on 5 January 2026 to keep the memory of the 2020 attacks on JNU alive and to highlight the above-mentioned pattern of injustice at Sabarmati Hostel, which was the prime target of the 2020 attacks,” the union said in its statement. It accused media outlets of siding with government narratives and “spreading slander against JNU,” claiming the coverage was politically motivated.

The students’ union also raised the issue of accountability for the 2020 violence, asking, “Where is Komal Sharma and the ABVP goons who accepted planning and executing the attack on national television?” The reference was to an unidentified woman later identified as Komal Sharma, who appeared with assailants during the attack on then JNUSU president Aishe Ghosh. Despite the media exposure, JNUSU alleged that the Delhi Police had not made a single arrest in connection with the incident.

The events of January 5, 2020, remain a point of contention on the campus. On that day, a mob attacked students protesting against hostel fee hikes, with Ghosh being physically assaulted in front of eyewitnesses. The alleged inaction of authorities and delayed legal proceedings have fueled ongoing grievances among student groups, and the recent slogans are being interpreted by the administration as a continuation of politically charged campus activism.

The dispute has reignited debates over the scope of free expression in educational institutions. While the JNU administration frames the slogans as a challenge to national institutions and a potential incitement of unrest, the student union frames them as legitimate dissent and protest against perceived injustices, particularly in cases where authorities have been accused of selective enforcement of law.

Legal experts note that universities in India operate under a delicate balance: they are spaces for intellectual inquiry and political expression, but actions deemed unlawful or inciting violence can draw strict disciplinary and legal consequences. The current row illustrates the tension between these two imperatives, especially in politically vibrant campuses like JNU.

The JNU administration’s threat of severe disciplinary action signals its intent to maintain order, particularly in light of the upcoming academic and political events on campus. Meanwhile, the JNUSU’s defensive stance suggests that student activism and protest culture remain deeply entrenched, with alumni and ongoing political affiliations playing a role in sustaining campus mobilization.

As the debate unfolds, observers have pointed out that the narrative surrounding Komal Sharma and the 2020 attacks adds a historical dimension to the current conflict. The unresolved legal cases and perceived inequities in law enforcement provide context for understanding why the slogans raised against political leaders struck a chord among protesting students.

The matter also touches on broader national conversations about the role of political ideologies in academic institutions. Incidents like these often become flashpoints in media and political discourse, highlighting the intersections of student rights, freedom of expression, and the state’s interest in maintaining public order.

In conclusion, the clash at JNU underscores a persistent struggle over campus autonomy, student activism, and the boundaries of acceptable protest. While the administration seeks to prevent what it terms the transformation of universities into “laboratories of hate,” the students’ union continues to assert its right to commemorate historical injustices and critique present-day political authorities. The coming days may witness further administrative action, potential legal proceedings, and continued debate over free speech, discipline, and political expression in one of India’s most politically active universities.