RGNUL Students’ Association
Reply to the Press Statement released by RGNUL Administration
On March 18, 2019, the RGNUL Administration released a press statement on Bar and Bench.
This statement was riddled with mischaracterization and outright lies. The University is not in
any way innocuous as it makes itself seem. Below-mentioned are the excerpts from the
statement and the replies thereto which emphasize the untruth emanating from the University’s
administration.
1. “The entire issue of strike at RGNUL started with agitation in mess regarding alleged quality
of mess food. However, none of the students complained verbally or in writing to the Warden,
Chief Warden, Registrar or the Vice-Chancellor about the mess food or other issues till 13
March."
At the very outset, there is nothing “alleged” about the quality of the mess food, it is a matter
of fact that the mess food in RGNUL has been degrading rampantly. (“Annexure 1”). Right
up till the disappearance of the Mess Complaint Register (“Register”) starting March 4, 2019,
complaints were entered into by the students on a regular basis.
As far as absence of written and verbal communication by the students is claimed, it is to be
noted that interactions with the mess committee were done regularly on verbal basis and
written communication was done right up till March 3, 2019 after which the Register
disappeared.
The complaints regarding the mess food have been brought to the notice of the authorities
time and again. Each time the higher authorities are approached, students are told to contact
the mess committee for grievances where as in their press reply, the university has
conveniently taken a completely different stance of stating that mess complaints are to be
reported to the Warden, Chief Warden, Registrar or the Vice-Chancellor.
Ordinarily, the Register is kept in the student’s mess wherein students express their
grievances, however, due to the failure of administration on this front, this Register is seldom
paid any attention to by the concerned faculty as had been admitted by chief warden, Dr.
Anand Pawar himself. Since the Register contained multiple complaints of the students, post
the publication of the press note by the university, the students sought to obtain the Register
for their reference again today, however, we were informed that the Register had been retained
by the Warden and procuring the same was not possible.
Students approached the mess committee to address their concerns of hygiene of the food,
findings strand of hair and metal wires in the food (“Annexure 2”). The mess committee got
the students in touch with the mess contractor. At this juncture, the head of the mess
committee had asked for one week to improve the mess food substantially. It is also to be
noted that these issues were also brought to the notice of the mess contractor and who accused
Page   1

 us of putting these foreign objects in our food ourselves.
Since the above request was taken cognizance of by the mess committee, it is our
understanding that the faculty in-charge of the mess committee would have been well apprised
of the issue at hand before any promises were made by the students in the mess committee.
Additionally, the warden also made a blatant statement saying that the mess contractor is a
capitalist entity and hence the students will have to fit into the system of them providing us
with bad unhygienic food for their profits.
Moreover, it is imperative to not fall for the University’s mischaracterization of the protests
only being about bad food. The entire issue of protests at RGNUL started due to the illegal
and arbitrary suspension of 6 students, and the protest is about the University’s arbitrary,
opaque and high-handed way of functioning with no regard for the rights of its students,
which, unfortunately, is the norm at RGNUL.
2. “On 13th March 2019, during dinner suddenly some students started banging platters against
the mess table. Some of these students had not even tasted the mess food whereas some
students were eating and simultaneously banging the platters and eating the food again.”
Stating that students “suddenly” started banging plates against the mess table is an extremely
misleading statement. The norm at the university is that after each expression of dissent at the
mess, the food would improve for a day or two and be back to its own ways soon after. The
protest was long coming with no improvement of the hygiene, quality and foreign material
presence in the food. The agitation of the students was also accelerated by the fact that there
was no Register available post March 3, 2019 and therefore no convenient grievance redressal
system. The fact of the matter is that the Register is supposed to be maintained by the guards
stationed at the mess, who are directly answerable to the Administrative Officer, and therefore
the same is manipulated by the AO. Added to this the constant limbo of approaching the
correct members sometimes being the mess workers, other times being the mess committee,
further other times being the administrative officer only led to even more frustration of the
students by this failed administrative structure.
We vehemently deny the allegations that students were banging plates while simultaneously
eating. Having a sense of decency and responsibility towards mankind, we would never
indulge in any activity which would result in wasting food no matter how degraded the food
is. There is photographic evidence to prove that students were in fact banging empty plates.
(“Annexure 3”).
3. “Simultaneously, the University constituted a committee to enquire into the incident as the
banging of plates was not a silent protest…The video clips were supplied to the committee by
certain informers from which some of the students were identified…The committee conducted
an urgent and thorough enquiry into the matter after giving a proper opportunity of being
heard…The six students who were identified after observing the video clips supplied to the
committee by certain informers, were called for hearing on 14th March 2019 and their
Page   2

 statements were recorded in writing which were also signed by the six identified
students…The statements given by the students were duly recorded and considered…In order
to prevent further harm to the University Property, Committee recommended suspension of
the six students who are studying in second year of B.A. LL.B. course during the pendency of
the enquiry…The suspension of the students on 15th March 2019 was an interim measure
subject to the outcome of final inquiry…Further, the suspension order specifically allowed
the students to appear in their mid-semester examinations..”
It is to be noted here that the administration is trying to misalign facts to the general public,
per habit, since they are adamant on having no changes to the flawed functioning of the
RGNUL administration. The mess plate banging incident took place on March 13, 2019
whereas a subsequent event having a participation of more than two hundred students took
place on March 15, 2019 post 8:30 pm which was a silent protest because the students were
afraid to ask for their rights from the college authorities in fear of being nitpicked and
harassed. Unfortunately, now we have already reached a position where the former has taken
place, students are being cherry picked by the faculty on the basis of their role in the ongoing
protests and are being threatened with repercussions on their academics. In some cases, phone
calls have also been made by the higher authorities to the student’s parents to induce the
parents to withdraw their ward from the protest.
It is unfortunate that the “certain informers” that the university is referring to are none other
than coerced versions of the six suspended students themselves. What is even more
unfortunate is that the university has, in their deliberations with the alumni told a different
story altogether; this fictional tale includes the faculty members informing the students to
lock/secure their cellphones to protect their data. Quite to the contrary, all six students were
called individually and all their phones were asked to be unlocked. When one student
protested and claimed his fundamental right of privacy being infringed, Dr. Vipan Kumar
said, “Privacy ke tattu, tu mujhe privacy sikhaeya?! Thappad marunga saari privacy nikal
dunga.” Therefore, the “certain informers” were none other than six students denied of their
fundamental right to privacy with their WhatsApp chats and their galleries encroached upon
even as late as 12 am at night.
RGNUL seldom delivers justice after hearing the other party and this case was no different.
Students were made to answer three questions which were heavy laced with faculty bias whilst
being under constant mental intimidation by the faculty members. Post submitting the written
answers, students were made to sign the sheet provided to them and dismissed. Our ongoing
protest, which is almost well into the eighty-ninth hour, aims to fix this much modified version
of the legal maxim audi alteram partem.
Shortly after, the six students were informed that they had been suspended. The problem
however, with this suspension was that the university forgot to follow its own rules. Per the
Regulation 11(2) of the RGNUL (Discipline among Students) Regulations, 2015, only the
Vice-Chancellor is vested with the authority to suspend students. However, in the case of the
current suspension, the Administrating Officer, Capt. S.P. Singh (Retd.) had signed off on the
Page   3

 suspension order. (“Annexure 4”) We are still awaiting to see what actions will be taken
against Capt. S.P. Singh (Retd.) for violation of the RGNUL (Discipline among Students)
Regulations, 2015.
4. “Suddenly on 15th March 2019 evening, when the students learnt that two esteemed judges of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana are coming in the guest house of RGNUL,…At around
12 midnight, students started raising slogans and blocked the road in front of the guest house.
The entire night, faculty members and Registrar kept on assuring the students that the
Committee will take a call on your demands next morning immediately but to no avail.”
On March 15, 2019, at around 8pm, students decided to pursue a soft silent protest outside the
Guest House to stand up for the injustice that was faced by six students of RGNUL who were
suspended arbitrarily. While students were assembling outside the Guest House, the guards
questioned the motive for our assembly and were then provided with a written representation
which was provided to the authorities inside the Guest House including the Registrar. The
same called for the suspension of the students to be revoked. After a while, the Registrar along
with other authorities came and tried to inquire about what we wanted, something which had
already been communicated via written representations. Rather, what the authorities were
doing were fishing for individuals to hold responsible for the act of silent protest. This is a
modus that is all too common at RGNUL. The authorities pick and choose the individuals
who lead collective actions on behalf of the students and enforce punitive actions and threats
against them, including avenging through marking them low in their viva-voce and other
academic activities. This is enabled by the lack of transparency in academic and
administrative actions in the University. The students were thus determined to not individually
respond to the faculty members as no student wanted to be nitpicked and harassed by the
Registrar or any of the faculty. Rather, the students agreed that all communication will be
made in writing and on behalf of all students, rather than in the name of one student. Such is
the despicable nature of the administration at RGNUL that students fear being singled out.
Many students have already been threatened, either by faculty members of repercussions in
their viva-voce, or have had phone calls made to their parents.
As for sloganeering, that was resorted to at 1 AM, when after 5 hours of protests, no adequate
response came from the authorities about the demand for revocation of the suspension orders.
The students did not block the road, and quite to the contrary ensured that they occupied only
one half of the road, leaving the rest half vacant for mobility of vehicles. Had the students
blocked the road, the cars of the District Magistrate, DC and various other individuals could
not have passed through. At all times at least half of the road was vacant which allowed the
free movement of cars. There exists photographic evidence of the same which has been
appended. (“Annexure 5”)
Moreover, the students witnessed a number of vans and buses coming into the campus, filled
with police personnel. The sheer number of the heavily armed police personnel present in the
night inside the campus simply cannot be attributed to the presence of dignitaries on the
campus. Since the University has witnessed dignitaries coming onto the campus prior to this,
where only a reasonable number of police personnel were present. (“Annexure 6”)
Page   4

 As for the claim that the “entire night” the Registrar and faculty members were assuring
students, the claim is a flat lie. The students were addressed only twice by the authorities, for
brief moments, and both the times the authorities claimed that their order was legal with the
Adjudicating Officer having the authority to issue such an order. Important to remark is that
when the two Judges addressed the students in the morning, they stated that the order was
wrong in law and the students were brought back into the campus. Furthermore, the Registrar
even hit out at a few individuals claiming it was their intent to “mislead” the rest of the
students by organizing the protest. During this time, the faculty behaved as expected and
interacted with the students and threatened them of dire consequences.
5. “The students were informed by the Faculty and the Registrar during the night of 15th March
2019 that the matter is pending with the Committee and the decision shall be taken
immediately in the Morning of 16th March 2019 by calling a meeting of the Committee….”
All of the above allegations are completely untrue. The students kept shivering all night long
and protested against the injustices. It is only in the morning, when the Hon’ble Judges of the
High Court came out and addressed the students. It is only thereafter this that the University
authorities took notice and tried to address the students’ grievances. Much later, the authorities
came and plainly stated that the issues would be looked into on Monday with no assurance
whatsoever.
6. “In the morning of 16th March 2019, two Judges of the High Court spoke to the students and
heard the grievances of the students. Both learned judges gave assurances to the students that
their genuine demands shall be met. At that time, students raised new demands including that
the first paper of mid- semester examinations be postponed…… suspension of six students be
revoked; administrative officer be suspended; and the in-timing of the girl students in hostels
be increased. Judges assured the students that their first three demands will be met (including
sending the AO on leave till further orders) and the other issues will be decided by the
Committee of Judges along with the Vice-Chancellor subject to the students calling off their
agitation. Judges requested the students to call off their agitation. However, despite such
assurances, students did not call off their agitation. Thereafter, representative of the
Chancellor, Justice Mahesh Grover also spoke to the students and heard their demands and
assured them that their first three demands will be met, as above, subject to the condition that
students calling off their agitation. However, despite such assurances from the Committee of
High Court Judges and also by the Vice-Chancellor, students did not stop their agitation.”
It is a false allegation that the students had issued new demands in front of the two Judges.
Rather, after the students had been protesting for about 8 hours without adequate response,
and they had been chanting slogans for three hours, the students decided that the
administration’s high-handedness in the University had to come to an end. Thus, a formal
representation was made on behalf of all students, and in the name of a newly constituted
Students’ Association. This was submitted to the authorities at 4 AM and all demands raised
before the two Hon’ble Judges in the morning were the demands made herein.
The Judges agreed that the demands put forward by the students were genuine and legitimate.
The students were repeatedly asking that written assurances be issued that the demands would
Page   5

 be seriously considered and met. Because no written assurances could be provided, the
students denied calling off the protest.
It is striking that the Judges would state that the revocation of an illegal order is contingent
upon students calling off their protest.
Moreover, that action against the SP Singh will only be taken if the students withdraw their
protest is serious disregard to the wrongs suffered by students against whom the AO has made
sexist, abusive and vitriolic remarks.
As for changing the hostel in-timings, the University has always in the past changed the intimings on fickle grounds and without setting up committees. An example of it is when the
hostel in-timings for the girls changes from 10 PM to 9 PM upon onset of winters, and vice
versa in summers. No committee is set up then to review the changes. Moreover, there exist
various other discriminatory practices with respect to restricting the liberties of girls inside
their hostels. There is no justification for individual hostel blocks within the compound of the
girls hostel to be locked post 11 PM restricting their mobility from one hostel block to another.
Post 11 PM, girls are targeted if they leave their rooms even to head to the washrooms, and if
they are assembled together in one room. The wardens regularly check, make the ‘inmates’
sign the attendance register at the end of every day, and upon failure to sign the same, for any
reason whatsoever, stern actions are taken.
Moreover, the students had also demanded the recognition of the student body, which the
administration fails to mention in their appeal. Upon explaining the plight of students due to
the administration’s arbitrariness to Justice Grover and why there was a need for a student
representative body, Justice Grover had remarked that indeed it was a legitimate demand.
In the end, though Justice Grover had stated that our demands were legitimate, he asked for
us to conclude our protests for them to be met. The students had agreed, and sent in a
representative inside the Guest House to Justice Grover so as to get the final assurances
drafted. When the representative came back, we were dismayed to find that the assurances
were ambiguous and did not ascertain fulfilment of our demands. When we send in a second
representation asking for specific assurances, we were denied. These specific assurances
included inter alia that the Committee set up to investigate SP Singh would be impartial,
transparent, and free of conflict of interest between its members. We also asked for being
provided with the minutes of the Committee, which we were told we do not require. We
further asked for a definite assurance stating that there will be recognition of a student
representative body, as opposed to the earlier assurance that a Committee will look into it. A
similar provision was etched out about resolving the discriminatory in-timings, whereby it
was only promised that the issue will be looked into, without any definitive assurance. Upon
denial of these assurances, the students decided to not give up their protest, for similarly
ambiguous statements is how the University prevents exercise of the rights of the students.
7.

“Vice-Chancellor along with faculty members again addressed the students on 17th March
2019 also and heard their grievances. During the interaction of the students with the ViceChancellor, the students demanded that the suspension of students be revoked immediately;
Page   6

 action against the administrative officer be taken; in-timing of the girls hostel be increased
till late night and; elected student body be allowed to involve students in participation in
university decision making. Vice-Chancellor assured that all the demands will be considered
after discussion with the Chancellor immediately and appropriate action will be taken at the
earliest and requested the students to end their protest. However, students did not accept the
request of the Vice-Chancellor.”
During this ‘interaction’, it is imperative to note that the VC was adamant that the protest be
called off before any action can be taken. He also further devolved his responsibility for the
demands by stating that the ultimate authority lies with the Chancellor of the University. It is
also important to note that the Vice Chancellor stated that the Chancellor, Hon’ble Chief
Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court would not be coming to address the students and
hear their grievances as was promised to us earlier. The Vice Chancellor in its stead stated
that he will make representations on behalf of the students to the Chancellor, which is
something fundamentally flawed for it is the administration that Dr. Paramjit Singh Jaswal
overlooks and supports against whom the students are agitating. Thus, the students do not
believe that they are being bonafidely represented before the Chancellor and hence want to
meet him and apprise him of their grievances themselves. Throughout the meeting, the VC
was aggressive, cutting off all speakers before they could even make their point, and obstinate.
He insisted that the protest be called off without giving anything else in return. Minutes of the
meeting with the VC drafted by the students are appended herewith. (“Annexure 7”).
Moreover, in the evening of 17th March 2019, a few alumni of the University tried to resolve
the deadlock between the students and the authorities, by meeting the VC. After the meeting,
the authorities were ready to issue written assurances, though they were again ambiguous and
non-definitive. However, the point to be noted is that the authorities had finally agreed to
promise in writing all that which the VC had earlier in the day stated was outside his authority
to give. This can only lead to the presumption that either the VC was lying when he said he
had no authority to give assurances in the day, or they planned to give to the students
assurances which would not bind them later on in the evening. Even if either of the two is
correct, it is a dastardly message that is sent to the students, which dents the credibility of the
administration.
8. “It is pertinent to mention here that during the interaction of the students with the Hon’ble
Judges and with the Vice-Chancellor, the issue of quality of mess food which initiated the
strike was never raised.”
The authorities, including the Registrar, the Vice Chancellor and the Hon’ble Judges of the
High Court who interacted with the students have been given a written representation from
the students, that includes the four demands which are central to the protest. The dismal
quality of the mess food provided an event which initiated the entire protest and has never
been the sole issue on which the protest rests. This gross mischaracterization by the
administration is a deliberate attempt to confound the gravity of the misdemeanors,
corruptness and perversity on part of the administration and its oft undertaken arbitrary
actions. The four demands that have been put forward by the students and have been reiterated
Page   7

 over and over in front of the authorities, and are precisely what the protest stands for. But this
does not mean that the university is not plagued by other issues which cause an infringement
of rights just as seriously.
The authorities while interacting with the students have agreed that none of the four demands
put forward by the students are frivolous or illegitimate. In fact, they have agreed that the
demands are justified and crop out of the basic rights that the students have. Yet, the
authorities have made the consideration of these demands conditional on the protest being
called off first. This is done because the administration does not in good faith desire to fulfill
our demands. Its aim is to promise chimeras drafted in smart legalese which allows it to evade
fulfilment of its duties later on. The students of Law will not be fooled by these ambiguous
statements, and demand assurances which will yield to fruition.

(please find the annexures below)

Page   8

 Annexure 1

 

Page 9

Annexure 2

 

Page 10

Annexure 3

 

 

Pagel 11

Annexure 4

 

Page 12

Annexure 5

 

Pagel 13

 

Page 14

Annexure 6

 

Pagel 15

 

Pagel 16

Annexure 7
MINUTES OF THE MEETING WITH THE VICE CHANCELLOR ON 17TH MARCH 2019
Pre-Meeting
After two and a half days of relentless protests, the Vice Chancellor agreed to meet and address the
students at 01:35 PM on 17th March. Prior to the meeting, the VC pressed a need for teachers to be
present at the sight to ensure his safety, to which the students were reluctant. This was to ensure that
the students are not subject to undue harassment (by pinpointing in viva-voce) at the hands of the
teachers, as has often been the case for students who stand up to the authorities in the past. However,
the VC felt ‘threatened’ by our peaceful protest and wanted the faculty present for his physical safety.
Coming to a compromise, the students and the VC agreed to the presence of some faculty members
standing back at a distance so that the students who were representing could not be recognized by
the faculty members. However, after waiting in the scorching sun for more than an hour, the VC
decided to show up, alongside 10 professors and a few administrative staff, in contravention of the
agreed compromise.
The Meeting
Ironically the meeting started with the VC enquiring about the student’s welfare in spite of the
students having protested in front of the VC’s residence all night and even sleeping outside it.
The first point of discussion consisted of the students asking for a written submission from the college
authorities affirming their intention to agree with the 4 demands put forward by the students. The VC
replied in the negative, relying on the fact that all the requisite negotiation pertaining to the same had
been done on the previous day in the presence of 3 judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
However, it must be pointed out that no clear consensus had been reached between the students and
the judges, as the final offer was categorically rejected by the students. This was done as the students
lacked clarity on the response and their resolution which was rejected by the Hon’ble Justices. The
clarity sought was in the nature of assurances for transparency and absence of conflict of interest in
the committee that was being set up. These points were required to be clarified as similar committees
and inquiries had been set up in the past, but with no fruition.

Page   17

 The second point of discussion pertained to the Administrative Officer’s dismissal to which the VC
instantaneously replied that the point had been made and needed no further discussion. The student
pressed further, asking for a representation in the meeting which are due to be held in the coming
week. However, the VC cited that the issues have been resolved on the previous day with the judges.
The point concluded with the VC asking for the students to call off the protest without addressing the
meeting and circumventing and avoiding the actual issue by referring to a different meeting
altogether. This started the entire process of the VC responding to a demand with a counter demand
which eventually resulted in a deadlock.
The third point of discussion pertained to the unequal in-timings to which the VC responded that the
same point had already been addressed in the email sent out to him and the point was being
unnecessarily repeated. The student further elaborated upon how the in-timings were an internal
matter and could be resolved by a simple administrative order. However, the VC decided to
circumvent and avoid the issue again by referring to the events that transpired on the previous day in
the presence of the judges. The VC also persistently kept pointing to the fact that the talks with the
judges had failed because the students reneged on them and did not agree thereafter. The truth of
the statement is that the students had rejected the offer by the Hon’ble Justices as the same were
ambiguously worded and do not definitively oblige the Administration to fulfill the demands.
The fourth point pertained to the constitution of the student body and the stance of the
administration regarding the same, to which the VC replied that he was powerless as far as the
granting of the student body was concerned, hence, he could only convey the need for the same to
the Chancellor. The VC also kept reiterating that the need for the student body was very new, even
though it had been brought to his notice at several instances in the past.
The fifth point of discussion pertained to the meeting with the Chancellor, as the same had been
assured by the judges on the previous day. The VC replied that the Chancellor was busy with
‘administrative engagements’ due to which he could not be on campus. Subsequently, the point
regarding the demand for extension of in-time was brought up. This was done as the change in intimings has always been a simple administrative order that can be issued internally without much
administrative procedure. However, the VC expressed that there was a complex procedure that
needed to be followed to grant the in-timings demand and he would discuss it with the Chancellor.
Subsequently, there was a deadlock as the VC kept on insisting that the students need to call off the
agitation for any further actions. This was the repeated response for the next couple of minutes
wherein the VC practically went deaf and kept on repeating the same.
The students again brought forward the need for a written assurance on the part of the university to
which the VC dismissed as impossible. As the need for the written assurance was pressed further, the
VC conveniently resorted to mockery. Subsequently, he decided to cut the discussion by stating that
he had heard enough and no further deliberation on the written assurance was warranted.
The meeting ended with the students conveying their intention to continue the agitation after which
the VC left.
-x-

Page   18