Slogans targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi were raised at JNU following the Supreme Court’s decision to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots case. The BJP hit back sharply, questioning protests against a Supreme Court verdict and accusing Left-backed student groups of attacking democratic institutions.
New Delhi: The Chief Security Officer of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) has written to the Station House Officer (SHO) of Vasant Kunj (North) Police Station, Delhi Police, seeking registration of an FIR over the raising of objectionable and provocative slogans outside Sabarmati Hostel on the JNU campus.
According to the official letter, the slogans were raised on January 5, between 9 pm and 10 pm, during a programme organised near Sabarmati Hostel. The event was reportedly organised by students associated with the JNU Students’ Union (JNUSU).
The incident took place shortly after the Supreme Court denied bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
The letter strongly criticises the nature of the slogans and states,
“The raising of such slogans is wholly inconsistent with democratic dissent, violate the JNU Code of Conduct, and have the potential to seriously disturb public order, campus harmony, and the safety and security environment of the University. The slogans raised were clearly audible, deliberate, and repeated, thereby indicating intentional and conscious misconduct rather than any spontaneous or inadvertent expression. The act reflects a wilful disregard for institutional discipline, established norms of civil discourse, and the peaceful academic character of the University campus…”
The security officer has requested the police to lodge an FIR under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), stating that such acts threaten peace, safety, and discipline on the university campus.
Sources said that the slogans were directed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and included references to coffins, which were seen as a direct and deliberate threat rather than symbolic or indirect expression. The slogans were allegedly raised near Sabarmati Hostel, and several Left-leaning student groups participated in the protest.
Danish, Joint Secretary of the Left-backed JNU Students’ Union, and Sunil, its Secretary, were present at the spot when the slogan-shouting took place, sources said. Other Left student groups were also part of the gathering.
Reacting strongly to the incident, BJP leader and Delhi Environment Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa questioned the protest against the Supreme Court’s decision.
“They have no link with this country. They are people who want to break up India, they speak ill of the prime minister,” he said.
The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), also condemned the slogans and announced that it would take action.
“The Left students shouted slogans near Sabarmati Hostel. They spoke ill against RSS, ABVP, PM Modi ji,”
said Pravin K Piyush, ABVP secretary at JNU.
An ABVP member further stated,
“We will pursue this matter and make sure they are punished.”
The controversy followed the Supreme Court’s detailed judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale held that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case against the two activists and attracted the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The court observed that at this stage, the prosecution evidence
“does not justify their enlargement on bail”,
and noted that the record suggested their involvement in planning, mobilisation, and issuing strategic directions linked to the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots.
While granting bail to five other accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed — the Supreme Court made it clear that each accused must be assessed individually.
Explaining the distinction, the court said,
“Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused.”
It further added,
“The hierarchy of participation requires the court to assess each application individually.”
The incident at JNU has once again sparked a national debate on campus protests, freedom of expression, institutional discipline, and the limits of dissent, especially in the context of judicial decisions passed by the Supreme Court of India.
Read Attachment:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Delhi riots
