Promotions and Apologies: JNU Faculty Withdraw Protest Case Amid Allegations of Coercion

Introduction: A Turning Point in a Seven-Year Battle

Seven years after 45 faculty members of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) took legal action against disciplinary measures imposed for participating in a one-day protest in 2018, the situation has seen a dramatic turn. At least seven of the petitioners have recently withdrawn from the court case and submitted unconditional apologies to the university administration—moves that have resulted in significant professional gains, including promotions and administrative appointments. The remaining 35 faculty members, however, continue to face charges and stalled career progress.

A Timeline of Apologies and Institutional Response

According to records reviewed by The Indian Express, the first set of apologies emerged in October 2024. Four faculty members from JNU’s language and social sciences departments—comprising one professor, one associate professor, and two assistant professors—formally withdrew from the legal case and issued unconditional apologies to the administration. Following this, their disciplinary charges were dropped. Notably, the professor was made chairperson of a centre, and one assistant professor climbed from Stage 2 to Associate Professor Stage 4 before being appointed as chairperson in March 2025. This individual also made a Rs 10,000 donation to the National Disaster Relief Fund, citing goodwill.

Between October 2024 and April 2025, three more faculty members—two professors and one associate professor—followed suit. All were subsequently cleared of disciplinary actions. All seven faculty members declined or did not respond to requests for comment.

The Remaining Petitioners: Charges Continue, Promotions Stall

Of the original 45 petitioners, 35 remain chargesheeted. Two have passed away, one has retired and filed a separate legal case. The remaining faculty continue to face stalled promotions. At least three assistant professors reportedly had their promotion applications unprocessed. Sources suggest that the administration has set an informal precondition: withdraw from the court case and offer an apology to be considered for advancement.

In one instance, a faculty member selected for a professorship position—already approved by a university selection committee and its statutory bodies—did not receive an official appointment letter. Instead, the administration allegedly suggested that they reconsider their participation in the court case. When this individual asked for written clarification, the university formally denied any such demand and labelled the concern as baseless.

University’s Denial and JNUTA’s Counterclaims

A senior university official dismissed the notion that apologies were tied to promotions as "false and fake narratives," adding that the matter is still sub judice. The official encouraged submission of concrete evidence, promising strict action if allegations are proven.

The disciplinary measures date back to 2018 when faculty members participated in a protest led by the JNU Teachers' Association (JNUTA). The protest was against irregularities in faculty appointments, dilution of reservation policies, and the controversial signing of a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Ministry of Education. The administration invoked the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules—typically applied to government officials—to justify the disciplinary action.

JNUTA’s Stand: A Fight for Due Process and Academic Freedom

JNUTA has consistently condemned the administration's stance, calling it coercive. In March 2025, the association formally raised concerns with Vice-Chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit during a follow-up to a February meeting. According to JNUTA President Surajit Mazumdar—also the lead petitioner in the 2019 court case—there has been no formal university statement on the matter, though unofficial communication has implied that apologies are a necessary step for case resolution and professional advancement.

“There is no continuing petitioner whose promotion has been processed,” Mazumdar said. He also criticised the application of CCS rules to a peaceful protest by faculty members, stating it was a coercive move. “The demand for apologies is aimed at silencing dissent and is equally unacceptable. The charges should be withdrawn unconditionally—that remains JNUTA’s consistent position,” he added.

Conclusion: An Ongoing Legal and Ethical Debate

As the matter awaits further hearings in the Delhi High Court this October, the divide between those who apologised and those who continue to stand firm reveals deeper tensions within India’s academic institutions. The unfolding developments at JNU highlight ongoing concerns about administrative transparency, academic freedom, and the potential misuse of disciplinary power to shape institutional narratives. The next few months will be critical in determining whether justice or coercion defines the final chapter of this prolonged conflict.