HC raps college for rusticating student over post on ‘Op Sindoor'
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday directed the state government to immediately release the 19-year-old engineering student from Pune who was arrested for allegedly posting objectionable content on social media regarding the recent military conflict between India and Pakistan. The court termed her arrest 'shocking' and ordered the university to allow her to appear in the ongoing examination.
The student had approached the high court through advocate Farhana Shah, seeking redressal against the college's 'arbitrary and unlawful' decision to rusticate her on May 9, 2025. She was subsequently arrested and remanded in judicial custody, and her bail application was rejected by a judicial magistrate in Pune.
According to the student's petition, she had merely re-posted a message on Instagram from a user named 'Reformistan'. The post read: 'Without a single shred of evidence for Pak's involvement at Pahalgam, the fascist Indian regime has just initiated war between 2 nuclear states by bombing 3 major civilian areas in Pakistan. This Hindutva-terrorism is right out of the Israeli playbook. India has been vehemently scapegoating Pak for its own failure in Occupied Kashmir due to India's colonisation of the region. This fanatic Islamophobic terrorism that India has displayed is grotesque. May sense, justice and humanity prevail. War serves no one'.
Though the 19-year-old had reposted the message without any ill-intent, she was subjected to public humiliation and casteist abuse within and outside the college campus, the petition stated. Although she deleted the post following the controversy, she was rusticated from the college, which claimed she had anti-national sentiments and posed a risk to the campus community and society. Her post had also brought disrepute to the college and the decision to expel her was aimed at preserving the institution's 'ethos', the college claimed.
The student's counsel submitted before the court that the college's action appeared to have been influenced by prevailing political and public sentiments rather than any objective assessment of facts or adherence to due process. Some individuals had made inflammatory remarks against her and branded her with derogatory and communal terms. The situation was further aggravated by the organisation of rallies and public demonstrations targeting the student, the lawyer said.
The division bench of justices Gauri Godse and Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that while the student had already faced consequences, the college's decision to rusticate her was ruining her life as a student.
'Somebody expresses something, and you want to ruin the life of the student? How can you rusticate,' the bench said. 'We are of the opinion that rustication is hurriedly issued without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to respond to such action. Hence, prima facie we find the order of rustication is required to be suspended.'
The court also directed the college to allow the student to appear for the remaining exams, saying, 'What is the purpose of an educational institution? Is it only to educate academically? You need to reform a student or make a student into a criminal? Let her appear for the remaining three papers.'
When the state's counsel mooted that the student be allowed to appear for the exams with police escort, the court remarked, 'She isn't a criminal. She cannot be asked to appear with the police around her. She has to be released.'
The court then directed the police to provide her with security and asked the college to allocate a separate classroom to her, if possible, for writing the exams.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
7 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC rejects plea on deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to move HC
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a "sweeping" drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter. "Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?" the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union. Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier. "Please go to the Gauhati High Court," the bench observed. Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court. The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea. The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks. "Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)... the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies," the plea claimed. It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly "pushed back" into Bangladesh. "These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court," it claimed. "The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty," the plea claimed. It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis. The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs. It also sought a declaration that the "push back" policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Framing the narrative war against Pakistan
Nobody ever really wins the war of narratives. Each side tells its own story — shaped by perceived triumphs, real or imagined — and believes in the glory of its version. No one cares what the other side claims, unless one side was materially and visibly vanquished in a physical fight. That rarely happens. Sample this: As India began striking terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7, Pakistan claimed it had shot down six Indian aircraft. India denied it. In fact, New Delhi refused to confirm any losses until last week, when the Chief of Defence Staff tacitly acknowledged that a jet (maybe more, unspecified) had been downed, but that 'the tactical mistake was remedied, and the plan reimplemented' — an implicit way of saying: 'It matters not what we lost, as long as we ultimately won.' The standoff ended in a ceasefire, with each side walking away convinced it had the better of the exchange. India believes it called out Pakistan's nuclear bluff; Pakistan insists it gave as good as it got — claims that remain unverifiable in the fog of war. Meanwhile, Pakistan says little about the pounding its airbases received in the Indian response. So steeped in denial is the country's military establishment that its Army Chief has assumed the rank of Field Marshal — an honorific that reveals more about narrative vanity than battlefield reality. For its part, Delhi is convinced it humbled Pakistan. Islamabad, however, couldn't disagree more. 'We have shattered India's illusion of superiority,' says Pakistan's PM. 'New Delhi has been taught a lesson in respecting the sovereignty of its neighbours.' Even Washington had its version of events. President Trump triumphantly claimed that he convinced both countries to back off. 'I talked trade with them,' he said. India denies it. Pakistan agrees. Who's telling the truth? Hard to say. Perhaps none of them care. Each sticks to its own version. Last week, seven multi-party Indian delegations visited global capitals to explain Delhi's position. Many in the West are sympathetic to India's position — its long-standing concerns about cross-border terrorism and Pakistan's duplicity in dealing with extremist groups. They recognise the provocations India faces and the public pressure on Delhi to respond. Even so, some take India's account with a pinch of salt. Yes, Pakistan was complicit in the Pahalgam terror attack — but why didn't India go after the real perpetrators? Why not share intelligence? Why the secrecy, the social media bans, the coyness in accepting losses, and the reluctance to engage with the international media? Back home, a few seem interested. Most people are content with the version of events presented to them. Perhaps that's the point of a good narrative — to remove the burden of inquiry, so the prevailing storyline is accepted, repeated, and quietly folded into national pride. And therein lies the rub. Narratives are, by their very nature, misleading. They mix fact, half-truth, and convenient fiction to produce a favourable picture. In the end, they mostly convince only the teller. You can believe deterrence has been restored — but it means little if your adversary doesn't agree. The deeper challenge lies in coming to terms with Pakistan's strategic culture. As Christine Fair, Professor at Georgetown University and a keen Pakistan watcher, has long argued, the Pakistan Army operates with an insurgent mindset. It wins simply by not losing. It thrives on confrontation and political relevance. That makes it almost immune to traditional deterrence logic. This is what India must keep in mind. The next time there's a provocation from Pakistan — and there might well be another — New Delhi would do well to resist the urge for political signalling. It's this compulsive need to cater to public opinion and control the narrative that often gets us into trouble. Showing resolve is tricky because it casts restraint as weakness and risks turning action into theatre. The smarter course is to hold fire, stay alert, and choose response over optics. For that, it's important to retain the element of surprise. In the days following the start of the operation, Pakistan's military claimed it had anticipated an Indian strike and was lying in wait. While the details remain unclear, Islamabad suggested it had adopted a restrained posture until Indian aircraft reportedly struck what it described as civilian targets, after which Pakistani forces retaliated by targeting Indian jets. Whether this sequence played out exactly as claimed is open to question. It's also unclear if not targeting the Pakistan military in the opening salvo was a strategic misstep. Yet the broader point stands: Military action, meant more as political messaging, is a risky undertaking. Combat aimed mainly at signalling, not effect, is almost always a mistake. It's worth bearing in mind that in conflicts like the four-day engagement in May, narrative dominance is an illusion. The real contest is not about who speaks loudest, but who adapts, who endures, and who denies the adversary what it wants most: Relevance. The writer is a retired naval officer and strategic affairs commentator based in New Delhi
Mint
14 minutes ago
- Mint
Aluminium industry body says Trumps move to double tariff will hurt sector
New Delhi, Aluminium industry body AAI has expressed concerns that US President Donald Trump's announcement to double tariffs on aluminium imports in that country will hurt the Indian manufacturers who are already under pressure from surging low-cost imports. On May 30, Trump announced that he would double the existing 25 per cent tariffs on aluminium imports from June 4. "The 50 per cent tariff announced by Trump will damage the Indian aluminium industry, which is already under pressure from surging low-cost imports," Aluminium Association of India said. The metal has strategic importance to the country and critical to industries such as defence, aerospace, energy transition, telecommunications, power and construction, it said, adding that both primary aluminium and poor quality scrap are entering the country in large volumes, threatening to create a surplus, suppress domestic prices, and undercut the viability of domestic producers. Though the government just announced a 12 per cent provisional safeguard duty on certain steel imports, AAI said there should be duty guardrails for the aluminium industry as well, which has so far invested more than Rs. 1.5 lakh crore to set up the current domestic primary aluminium capacity of 4.2 million tonnes per annum . FIMI Director General B K Bhatia stated that the major share of Indian exports of aluminium is accounted by US valuing about USD 946 million. A further increase in tariff is bound to have adverse impact on Indian aluminium exports market. "We are hopeful that this issue will get resolved during ongoing trade negotiations between India and USA," he said. In 2024-25, India exported iron, steel, and aluminium products worth USD 4.56 billion to the US, with key categories including USD 587.5 million in iron and steel, USD 3.1 billion in articles of iron or steel and USD 860 million in aluminium and related articles. This proposed hike is tariff comes under Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to impose tariffs or other trade restrictions if imports are deemed a threat to national security. Trump originally invoked this provision in 2018 to set the 25 per cent tariff on steel and 10 per cent on aluminium. He raised tariffs on aluminium to 25 per cent in February 2025. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
