When Slogans Become a Crime: The Real Story Behind JNU’s Police Complaint Against Its Own Students

This campus incident is viewed by some critics as a symptom of a much larger national issue: an alleged “judicial decline” where court judgments are perceived as being influenced by political pressures.

By Rakesh Raman
New Delhi | January 6, 2026

Introduction: More Than Just Noise

The image of a student protest is a familiar one, often a symbol of a healthy, engaged democracy. But what happens when the very institution meant to nurture that engagement turns against its students? This is the situation unfolding at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), where the administration has sought police action, including the filing of an FIR, against its own students for raising slogans against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah.

The university administration has labeled the slogans “highly objectionable, provocative and inflammatory,” and a potential contempt of the Supreme Court. The move to involve law enforcement transforms a campus protest into a state matter, escalating the stakes significantly.

To understand this severe reaction, one must look beyond the slogans to the precise moment they were uttered, the traumatic anniversary they coincided with, and the national crisis they reflect.

1. The Real Trigger: A Controversial Court Verdict

The event, titled “A Night of Resistance with Guerrilla Dhaba,” began as a small gathering of 30 to 35 students. According to the JNU administration’s letter to the Delhi Police, it was initially a gathering to commemorate the violent campus attack of January 5, 2020. However, the nature of the event changed dramatically during the night.

The turning point was the announcement of a judicial verdict concerning the bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. It was only after this news broke that some students allegedly raised the slogans the university deemed inflammatory. In its letter, the administration sharpens the conflict by moving from an abstract complaint to a targeted one, having named several students, including current JNUSU president Aditi Mishra. The Supreme Court had just denied them bail in connection with the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, with the court stating its reasoning in stark terms:

The Supreme Court of India denied bail to activist Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, ruling that they stood on a “higher footing in the hierarchy of participation” regarding the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.

This context is critical. The slogans were not a random act of defiance but a direct, real-time reaction to a decision by the nation’s highest court. For the protesting students, the verdict was perceived as an injustice, and their slogans were an immediate expression of that sentiment.

RELATED RMN NEWS REPORTS

[ Panjab University Protests Escalate Amid Affidavit Row and Regime Crackdown Fears ]

[ Cinema as a Smokescreen: Unpacking the Propaganda Behind India’s Democratic Crisis ]

2. An Anniversary of Violence

The student gathering was not spontaneous; it was an annual event organized to remember a traumatic chapter in the university’s recent history. Students gather each year to condemn the violence that occurred on campus on January 5, 2020.

On that day, a mob of masked men stormed the JNU campus, unleashing mayhem with sticks, stones, and iron rods. They targeted students in three different hostels, attacking inmates and destroying property. At least 28 people were injured in the assault, including the JNU Students’ Union president at the time, Aishe Ghosh.

This background is essential for understanding the atmosphere in which the slogans were raised. The “A Night of Resistance” event takes place within a framework of remembering past violence and a perceived lack of accountability for the perpetrators of that attack. The gathering is, at its core, an act of protest against what students see as a failure of the system to protect them and deliver justice.

3. A Symptom of a Larger “Judicial Decline”

Broadening the lens, this campus incident is viewed by some critics as a symptom of a much larger national issue: an alleged “judicial decline” where court judgments are perceived as being influenced by political pressures. This perspective argues that the judiciary is no longer an impartial arbiter of justice.

This critical viewpoint is captured in the assertion that the courts have become aligned with the executive branch:

Almost all Supreme Court judgments aim to please the Supreme Leader Modi.

From this perspective, the case of Umar Khalid is a prime example of a perceived double standard. Khalid, a vocal critic of the government, has been incarcerated for approximately five years under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) without trial. Critics point to a stark contrast in the law’s application by comparing Khalid’s case to that of BJP leader Kapil Mishra; despite a court ordering an investigation into his role in the 2020 riots, he has not faced similar detention.

This perceived imbalance feeds a narrative of state impunity for political allies and harsh punishment for dissenters. Consequently, when democratic avenues like the courts and the political opposition are seen as compromised or “extinct,” student sloganeering is framed as a desperate, last-resort act of political expression.

Conclusion: A Question of Democracy

The events at JNU are more than just a dispute over campus discipline. The protest slogans were a direct reaction to a Supreme Court verdict, shouted at an event commemorating past violence, and are seen by critics as a reflection of a deeper national crisis of faith in democratic institutions.

In a political climate where the opposition is seen as ineffective and the courts as complicit, a new narrative is emerging: that the last hope for restoring democracy rests with Gen Z and student-led movements. This is not a theoretical hope; student-led protests recently helped dethrone similar autocratic governments in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal, providing a powerful regional precedent. The potential of a similar youth uprising in India has not gone unnoticed, with Prime Minister Modi himself recently making a direct appeal to Gen Z to engage in nation-building.

As JNU’s administration pursues police action, the incident forces a larger question. When students believe their only recourse is a slogan, they are not just protesting a verdict; they are challenging a system they feel has failed them. The real question is not whether their slogans were inflammatory, but whether their energy could become the catalyst for the very change the state seeks to control.