Kamla Nehru College has been recognised as the first ‘Zero-Waste Institution’ under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026, marking an important step toward sustainable campus practices.
The college’s programme, titled Awareness on Zero-Waste Management Practices, began with the ceremonial lighting of the lamp, followed by an address from the Principal, Prof. Pavitra Bhardwaj. Addressing the gathering, she reflected on KNC’s journey since its establishment in 1964 and stated that the college remained committed to maintaining an eco-friendly campus. She also highlighted the role of the college’s Solid Liquid Resource Management (SLRM) Committee, which works in collaboration with the MCD to facilitate sustainable waste management practices.
The programme was also attended by Dr Rajiv Nayan, Assistant Commissioner, Central Zone, MCD, and Shammi Talwar, Brand Ambassador for the MCD’s Swachh Survekshan campaign. Talwar pointed to the growing problem of waste accumulation in the city and emphasised that waste segregation and proper disposal must begin at the source, including within individual households.
In his address, Chief Guest Shashwat Saurabh laid particular emphasis on collective action in tackling waste management, highlighting the importance of public participation in addressing the issue. He also commended the efforts of the MCD’s sanitation workers and urged students to fulfil their civic responsibilities.
Speaking to DU Beat, the President of KNC’s Student Council, Rajeshwari Shelke, said,
I feel immensely proud that Kamala Nehru College has been recognised as a Zero-Waste Institution. This achievement reflects the dedication of our students and the unwavering commitment of the college towards sustainability. Together, we’ve created a campus where responsible choices inspire lasting change.”
The programme concluded with a skit performed by members of the college’s SLRM Committee, highlighting the importance of effective waste management. The Chief Guest then distributed participation certificates to the students before presenting the Principal with the ‘Zero-Waste Institution’ certificate.
Delhi University secured a global rank of 322 in the QS World University Rankings 2027, up from 328 last year, with significant improvements in research citations and sustainability.
The Delhi University has climbed six places in the QS World University Rankings 2027, securing a global rank of 322 compared to 328 in the previous edition. The university has also retained its position as India’s highest-ranked public university and remains seventh overall among all higher education institutions in the country.
The QS World University Rankings 2027 evaluated 8,808 institutions worldwide, with 1,504 universities from 106 countries and territories making the final list. Among the 52 Indian institutions featured, Delhi University has continued to strengthen its standing at both the national and international levels.
While the six-place rise in the overall rankings is noteworthy, the most significant improvement came in Citations per Faculty, where DU jumped 85 places globally, from 403rd to 318th. This reflects the growing quality, visibility, and impact of the university’s research output. As this metric typically changes gradually, such a substantial rise in a single edition is particularly significant.
The university also recorded notable progress in sustainability, climbing 57 places from 297th to 240th globally. Its Employer Reputation ranking improved by 15 positions, rising from 319th to 304th. DU’s overall score increased from 42.6 in the 2026 rankings to 43.8 in the 2027 edition. Among Indian institutions, Delhi University ranked second in Employment Outcomes, fourth in Sustainability (up from sixth in 2026), fourth in International Research Network, and sixth in Academic Reputation, maintaining its position in the latter category from the previous year.
One indicator that remained unchanged was Academic Reputation, where Delhi University continues to rank sixth among Indian universities. This metric reflects how academics assess the quality of teaching and research at an institution.
The rise in our global standing, along with the university’s position among India’s leading institutions, demonstrates the strength of our academic ecosystem and our commitment to excellence in teaching, research, innovation, sustainability, and societal engagement.
Delhi University has announced the second round of PG seat allocations under CSAS-PG 2026. Candidates must accept the allotted seats by June 24, while fee payment remains open until June 27.
DU is conducting admissions to postgraduate programmes for the 2026-27 academic session on the basis of scores obtained in the Common University Entrance Test (Postgraduate), or CUET-PG. The university allocates seats based on candidates’ entrance examination scores, programme preferences, and seat availability through the Common Seat Allocation System for Post-graduate Programmes [CSAS-PG].
According to an official notice issued by the University of Delhi Admission Branch, the second round of seat allocation results for post-graduate admissions has been released. As per the admission schedule, applicants who accept their allotted seats will be able to pay the admission fee until June 27. The second round of allocations was announced on June 22, hence continuing the ongoing postgraduate admission process.
The university has made 2964 fresh allocations across various postgraduate programmes during the second round. Alongside the allocation list, DU has also released programme-wise minimum allocation scores for candidates. Candidates can log in using their credentials to view their allotment status and complete the required admission formalities within the given time. Admission data released by the university indicates significant participation in the first round of admissions, with over 8,000 candidates completing the process by paying the prescribed fees. Though several students have opted for upgradation in subsequent rounds, others have chosen to retain their allotted seats.
As the second round is underway, candidates are advised to check their allotment status carefully and complete all the required admission formalities within the stipulated time. Failure to meet the deadlines for seat acceptance or fee payment may result in the cancellation of the allotted seat
Students should regularly monitor official university notifications through the admission portal and the CSAS-PG portal for updates regarding future allocation rounds, upgrades, and admission-related announcements. The postgraduate admission process is expected to continue through additional rounds of allocation based on seat availability and candidate preferences.
The care economy is the most foundational ingredient of a resilient economy. Where then, is the recognition?
The sound of my childhood is many things. It’s waking up to an auntie aggressively sweeping the floor, knocking things over as she makes her way through the room and haphazardly putting them back. It’s the sound of the pressure cooker, the tawa sizzling, the tandoor crackling away as sweet potatoes bathe in the heat of the coal. In almost every way, the sound of every average Indian child is also the silent one of compliance, to the system that is brazen in its onerous ways, to the family that unknowingly falls victim to this system, and the realisation that eventually accompanies it.
Compliance, in this context, is borne from the sentiment that really has no viable response, no widely feasible solution, except a few, but that discussion will perhaps be better suited for the latter part of this piece. “Agar main nahi karungi, toh kaun karega? (If I don’t do it, who will?)” That is exactly why the question of how to include the care economy into traditional economic activities has left economists hanging. It’s because care is elusive; the methodological fundamentalism of any study that involves the economy or the economic being requires that the rationality assumption be fulfilled. This is where the concept of the ‘rational economic man’ comes into the picture, and why the care economy fundamentally cannot function within a historically orthodox mainstream or neoclassical framework, because care itself isn’t driven by rationality in any sense. Love, concern, responsibility, and obligation may motivate care work, but rationality may neither be achievable nor conceivable as an option for most care workers. If it were so, most mothers, domestic workers, and home nurses would not be doing what they are, and instead engage in economic activities that are traditionally more ‘productive’.
The important point to consider here is that the care economy is absolutely essential. Of course, this is a historically recognised fact, but it cannot be ignored that certain sections of society must bear the burden of not only providing care work, but having it remain hidden, unrecognised, and as a service existing in perpetuity. This is where the issue lies. First of all, by restricting endless aspirations, individual nuances and souls behind the obligation of care–without which the economy would falter completely, there remains no real possibility of redistribution. The heteronormative structure that divides familial responsibility is efficient, and is definitely rational, but whether it is equitable, or even realistic in the humanistic sense, is the question we must ask ourselves. Secondly, we all have heard non-participants in the care economy singing praises of those who function under it. What they do is selfless, they say, the hallmark of a good, responsible caretaker and person; they are just as they should be, there is no other place for them to exist in. All of this is an illusion to distract from the reality of the situation, the fact that as soon as there are people performing obligatory economic activities with no true compensation (except perhaps the validation of those they care for, or maybe society) or a wage of any kind, it reduces their bargaining power almost to oblivion. They become passive participants in the political and economic diaspora of their environment and, in a way, displace the control over their own fate.
In India, especially, once we consider care and extended care activities that the classical economic models generally ignore, the labour force participation rate for females (in the heteronormative structure) increases dramatically, three or four- fold in comparison to when they are not included. What this means is that there is a particularly large chunk of society in the country right now, which is moving from working in a recognisable space where there is formal compensation, to unpaid, unrecognised work. Isn’t that deeply concerning?
This is a complex situation to resolve because creating a distributive care economy would, firstly, require an overturning of generations of psychosocial training, and secondly, entail authorities to acknowledge that there is even a requirement to overturn a system that fundamentally operates in their favour. When care work is outsourced, as many Indian households do, it creates a supply chain that leads to the same outcome for another individual. For example, if a domestic helper is paid to cook and clean for a particular household, they would not have enough time to do the same at home. It is then likely that, if they have the means to, they outsource their care work as well (or train future care workers within the family) or exist in a perpetual state of “time poverty”. There simply isn’t enough time to work, to care for children or elderly family members, and to care for the house as a whole, while still caring for oneself. The most important thing that gets lost here is recognizability, monetary and otherwise, and there must be a way to regain it. Perhaps, it is otherwise false to claim that we enjoy a democratic setup when so many people aren’t even given space to exist within it.
Image credits: Carlin, a Peruvian political cartoonist
Raising concerns regarding repeated infrastructure-related incidents across campuses, students of the University of Delhi organised a protest at the Faculty of Arts.
Students of the University of Delhi staged a protest at the Faculty of Arts earlier this week over alleged negligence regarding campus infrastructure and student safety. NSUI member Gopal Choudhary reportedly led the demonstration. Students raised concerns over a series of infrastructure-related incidents reported across various colleges and departments under the university.
Demonstrators demanded immediate structural safety audits of university buildings, urgent repair work in deteriorating facilities, and greater administrative accountability regarding campus safety measures.
Following the protests and growing concerns regarding campus infrastructure, the Delhi University administration has now reportedly instructed colleges and departments to conduct proper structural and electrical safety inspections across campuses. However, there is no official statement from the University administration regarding this decision.
Among the demands raised during the protest was the provision of life insurance and compensation support for students injured in infrastructure failures within university premises. Protesters also called upon the administration to publicly address recent incidents and implement preventive measures to avoid similar occurrences in the future.
In an interview with the Editorial Team of DU Beat, Gopal mentioned,
We have given the administration of DU an ultimatum of 21 days. During this time, we want them to conduct thorough inspection of all DU colleges and suspend classes as well as exams in campuses with poor infrastructure. Otherwise we will again stage a hunger strike until stricter actions are taken. We are also planning to file a RTI in 1-2 days time for how the annual budget is spent in every college. When we approached the administration of DU, they pointed us towards the individual colleges. And the admin in the colleges pointed us back to the VC. There is no end to this cycle and both of them are equally responsible. At the end they’ll have to work together if change is desired.
Other than that, we are protesting for water coolers and ORS facilities in every classroom during the exam season in light of the prevalent heatwave. In addition to this, the 66.67% attendance criteria is also problematic. I will be attending a meeting on Monday with the administration to address these concerns.”
Slogans such as “DU Campus or Danger Zone” and “Have we come here to study or die?” were seen on placards and raised during the demonstration, reflecting concerns among students regarding safety conditions on campus.
The protest follows a recent incident reported at the Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, on 4 May 2026 during an ongoing MSc practical examination. According to statements circulated online, the false ceiling of Lab Room No. 26 allegedly collapsed between 3:45 and 4:00 PM, along with a projector and nearby panels, while students were writing their examination.
One student reportedly sustained a severe head injury requiring several stitches and was taken to a nearby hospital in Civil Lines. Another student allegedly suffered minor shoulder injuries. The incident prompted renewed discussion among students regarding the structural condition of university buildings and the response mechanisms available during emergencies.
Visuals from the protest showed students assembled with placards and banners outside the Faculty of Arts premises, with slogans reportedly focusing on student safety and institutional accountability. Protesters alleged that multiple warnings and complaints regarding infrastructure conditions had previously been raised across colleges.
After many drafts and meetings the final date sheet was uploaded, changing the examination dates for Semester 6th and 8th students. This comes after the final date for filling the examination form with late fee passed on the 7th of May.
On 7th May, between 7:18PM and 7:25PM, the examination date sheet got updated by Delhi University, changing the exam dates for Semester 6 and 8 students. This change came a few hours before the last time students of regular, NCWEB (Non-Collegiate Women’s Education Board), and SOL (School of Open Learning) could fill up the examination form with late fees.
The final date sheet has preponed the exams for 6th and 8th semester. Exams will now take place earlier. As an example, previously DSE exams for semester 8 were to be conducted on 18th May, 15th, 17th and 18th of June respectively but now it will be conducted on the 18th and 20th May, and 7th and 14th June,2026. Similarly, many semester 6 exams are now pre-poned to end by the 4th of June.
Many final semester students had complained about the month-long gap between exams and wished for their exams to get concluded timely without huge gaps due to job opportunities and admission deadlines. Rahul Jhansla, Vice President of DUSU, had submitted a written application to the Dean of Student Welfare regarding the DU examination date sheet for the aforementioned reasons.
According to Rahul Jhansla, the DU administration had kept the initial gap in consideration for the UPSC prelims; however, they later stated that they would speak to the Controller of Examinations to reduce the gap in the later period.
The examination notice released on 4th May further announced that students currently in their 6th semester could opt for exiting in the SLC portal in June or July, instead of choosing to pursue the additional 4th Year added by the NEP 2020.
Students are advised to check their admit cards for the May-June 2026 examination, which is live on the SLC portal. Many students have also reported that their admit cards show ‘EXTCR” on the column ‘paper type’ causing further confusion. However, they have been informed by teachers that it will not be an issue if it continues to show even after the correction.
Even though the final date sheet has now been released, many students have expressed frustration at the constantly changing date sheet since it disrupts plans for studying and travelling back home. It also highlights poor planning and lack of communication on the University’s behalf as many students continue to question whether or not this shall be the final timetable, despite the official notice.
On 30th April, Hansraj College issued a notice terminating the suspensions of 29 out of 30 students; however, Parth Srivastava’s suspension remains in effect. He has approached the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 and has argued that the suspension violates Parth’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.
Hansraj College terminated the suspension of 29 out of 30 students who were suspended due to alleged defamation, violence, indiscipline and misconduct, which had occurred after the college fest, Confluence 2026. However, one student, Parth Srivastava, the former president of the student union of Hansraj College, is still suspended, and the matter has reached the High Court of Delhi.
However, Parth Srivastava is still suspended and has filed a petition to the Delhi High Court challenging his suspension on multiple grounds, including “defaming the college through social media platforms” and using “derogatory language.”
On 29th April, Justice Jasmeet Singh issued a notice which allowed Parth Srivastava to enter the campus to fill his examination form as the last date was on 30th April. The notice also stated that the petitioner will not cause any disruption in the college. But he wasn’t allowed to attend his farewell.
Parth Srivastava in conversation with DU Beat
He told DU Beat,
“The person who gave all of his four years to the college and its students was specifically not allowed to attend his own farewell through explicit instructions mentioned in the notice/poster. It was truly very disheartening and shattering for me.”
Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, pleas that his suspension, which was declared on 20th April, be squashed. In a report by Newslaundry, “[t]he petition argues that the suspension violates Parth’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution–the rights to equality, free speech, and life and dignity.” It has also challenged the legitimacy of the Special Core Sub-Discipline Committee, which suspended him.
The petition also seeks to restore all the academic benefits throughout the suspension period and ensure the petitioner is permitted to attend all classes, participate in academic activities, and continue his education without interruption. This had all begun on February 9th, when a controversy arose because the principal of Hansraj College had used the campus for her son’s wedding, which caused a protest that raised questions about the use of public resources for private use.
Later, around February 12 and 16, another controversy sparked by allegations of NIRF data manipulation. Multiple RTIs were filed by Parth, who later received a disciplinary notice with no charges specified. Later, he filed a complaint with the Central Vigilance Commission on 31st March and then, on 20th April, received his suspension letter.
“After the irregularities highlighted by my RTI application and a CVC complaint were forwarded to the CVO, DU on 16th April, my suspension notice was issued just four days later. Further, suspension notices issued to others during the same period have been revoked, while action against me continues, raising concerns about selective targeting,”
Parth Srivastava mentioned in an interview with DU Beat.
On April 1st, the college had uploaded the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), which prohibited the students from speaking to the media without prior permission, posting defamatory content on social media, and recording meetings or administrative discussions.
On the day of the college fest, many decisions by the college administration, like restrictions on external artists and forcibly concluding the fest early on day one, caused a 20-hour sit-in protest. Many misogynistic remarks were allegedly made to the female protesters by the principal. The college administration gave in, however, on Day 2 of the fest, but the poor crowd management led to physical violence, harassment, and uncontrolled chaos, which led to police intervention.
Parth admitted to posting videos that criticised the college over fee hikes and administration issues.
Parth’s lawyer, Shaurya Vikram, argued that the suspension order is illegal and driven by malice. According to him, the order was issued without any charges, evidence, or clarification of the committee’s authority, making it invalid. He also pointed out that Delhi University stated in 2023 that it cannot regulate staff social media activity, questioning why the same principle shouldn’t apply to students.
In an exclusive interview with the editorial team of DU Beat, he mentioned that:
“ I was targeted because I’m the only one who’s willing to raise a voice. I received emails from the Special Disciplinary Committee formed by the administration of Hansraj without any proof, show-cause notice or relevant information. People allegedly brought knives and guns to the fest, and their faces were all over the internet, yet no action was taken against them. When a civil crime like alleged “defamation” carries so much weight compared to serious crimes like that, it raises concerns about the priorities of our institutions and the environment they are creating. I have been part of the same administration during my tenure, and I know exactly what goes on there, so I am not one to back down from a fight. We trust the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the student community that we will get justice. ”
Principal Rama Sharma defended the suspension, saying it was needed to maintain order. She criticised students for making false claims and defaming the college on social media. However, she added that most students come to Hansraj College to study, and their academics shouldn’t be disrupted, as it is a “very prestigious college.”
The next hearing for the court case is on 8th May, 2026.
Where does the future of press lie? Does it even lie, or is it just another petrified reality waiting to become a manufactured myth?
A free press is said to be the fourth pillar of a democratic nation, or at least that was the norm. It is regarded widely as a highly potent part of a larger system of checks and balances that keep the nation tied together through politics, economics, justice and beyond. And it is the association of “free” with press that preserves it as a critical component especially at a turning moment in time like today where news is filtered for profitability and truth itself is accustomed to be molded like clay.
As a student journalist working for about a year now, in the limited time that I’ve found myself associated with this field, I’ve learned beyond the good-to-knows, that is, the way to stir up a headline or chase a story—the past months have pushed me to a larger realisation of what it truly means to listen, who gets to be heard, and what are the costs of speaking up.
India is a country of too many people from too many regions and too many diversities—here, too is to be regarded as liberating, as is the term “overpopulating” in overflowing our landscape with stories far more than the news channels or filmmakers can ever fully capture. ‘Untold stories’ in India thus becomes more than a buzzword but experiences lived and unheard, but yet a reality that finds itself limited again to the mainstream. In the ‘unhearing’ of such stories, what renders invisible is the people for whom it is not a story: those who are too marginal, too inconvenient, or worse, too disruptive to even be considered for Page 4, let alone front headlines.
Before I had the vocabulary for it, I had already felt patriarchy shape my world. Before I understood class, I had already encountered the sharp divide between those who have and those who do not. Yet, as an urban upper-caste individual, there also remains parts of my inherited identity that are silent; I just had the privilege to never notice or question them because they were stories I did not hear because I did not have to ever live through them. Journalism, at its best, breaks that silence.
I would like to believe that I have come of age at a time when the institution of journalism itself feels increasingly fragile by the passing day. This decline of the freedom of the press is not relatively new, but perhaps more visible to the eye of the common layman who continue to persist beyond the scholars, writers, journalists, and critics that have lived and died warning us about censorship, the corrosion of independent media, and the damage this does to the very ecology of democracy that journalism is meant to sustain. These warnings are not breaking news (pun intended), but the familiarity of such a warning may be part of the problem.
In conversations, I have found myself realising the unsettling reality that the risks of pursuing journalism often seem to outweigh the rewards: the best-paying positions frequently exist within systems that are deeply entangled with power and the ABCs of journalism are negotiated on the daily, unfortunately resulting in the death of the fourth pillar and a failure of what it truly stands to support. Yet in between the fading light, student journalism presents itself as something radically different: as something not yet entangled in the futile war between politics and spectacle.
I remember an ideation meeting we had for the DU Beat Print edition; I mentioned, almost apologetically, the opening of a new café on campus as the news tip of the week. It didn’t feel like “real news” to me, given what “real” had been ingrained into me, and it wasn’t until my editor responded with something that I realised that journalism, especially student journalism, is not only about documenting crises but also to function as an archival. It preserves the textures of everyday life, the clothes people wore, the food they ate, the spaces they gathered in, and the conversations they had. Journalism becomes a record of that very existence that tells future readers what happened, alongside how it felt to live through it.
In the brief and privileged opportunities that I’ve had to step into larger mainstream newsrooms, I’ve come to notice the behind the scenes of press production that positions itself as neutral, but is rarely unbiased. Behind every headline and breaking news, is a thorough process of filtration and of calculation: the economy of news, who funds it, who controls it, and most importantly who benefits from it. It is perhaps as ‘1984’ as it gets.
As we encounter days of what is meant to be a celebration such as International Press Freedom day, I instead find myself lingering in thoughts of the words edited out and the stories that are censored before the screens can ever house them. It is perhaps uncomfortable to think of how easily we scrutinise dissent and how quickly a protest is delegitimised, especially in student-led spaces where frequently power speaks louder than truth. But it is within such thoughts, and the questioning of such realities that possibility emerges: student journalism, independent media houses, and smaller platforms continue to carve out within the controlled mainstream such spaces of resistance even without the reach of resources. What they rely on though is by far the most important tool of journalism: the willingness to ask difficult questions and seek it answers.
Perhaps in reimagining the future of freedom, of truth, and of journalism in a landscape that silences, the Big 4 hides behind the smaller newsrooms, campus publications, independent newsletters, local reporting and spaces where journalism is still driven by curiosity instead of control. Question what you read and what is shown to you: interrogate and listen in between what is left unsaid. The strength of the fourth pillar does not only depend on those who build it but equally so on those who engage with it.
While protests at LSR continue for the removal of the Principal’s video featured on BJP’s official Instagram page, debates spark on institutional identity, political freedom, and the student’s right to dissent.
After the protests staged at LSR on the 15th of April over the Principal’s video on Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam being featured on the official Instagram page of the Bharatiya Janata Party came to an inconclusive end, the Principal, Dr. Kanika K. Ahuja issued an official statement to The Indian Express. She stated,
The views were shared in the video in an individual capacity. While I hold the office of the Principal, it is important to distinguish between personal intellectual engagement with a social subject and a formal institutional communique.”
Addressing the college’s reiterated commitment to maintaining the ‘apolitical’ stance, she said, “The college’s commitment to an apolitical environment refers to an absence of partisan affiliation not a detachment from critical social discourse.” She further addressed the alleged “saffronisation” on campus through selectively inviting speakers by adding,
The selection of speakers and the organisation of events are decentralised processes at LSR. These decisions are primarily driven by the respective student societies in consultation with their faculty advisors.”
These clarifications come in the wake of the student-led protest held on campus where students across departments and years organised sit-ins at the lower foyer—the immediate area outside the auditorium, adjacent to the Principal’s Office—along with the adjoining corridors, staircases, and outdoor spaces to raise concerns regarding the circulation of this video, which they believed to be in direct opposition to the college’s stated ‘apolitical’ stance that has been reiterated to close down exhibitions, refuse approval of speakers, and hinder free political expression on campus.
In a clarification issued by the students through a statement they refute accusations of being against the Women’s Reservation Bill. The statement published through an anonymous Instagram account reads, “Contrary to the disinformation at the moment—the students of LSR are not mobs protesting against the Women’s Reservation Bill which was talked about by Principal, Ms. Kanika K. Ahuja. The students are conducting a PEACE PROTEST at the moment against the hypocritical stance on apoliticality that our Principal uses to dismiss the girls when they attempt to talk about critical discourses, creative freedom…”. To the students of LSR who stress on their protest as peaceful—one that they reasserted with a floral arrangement reading “We Come in Peace” against the accusations of being a “mob” as asserted by a faculty member—their primary cause of dissent is the featuring of the Principal’s video where she is identified not in an individual capacity but as the Principal of Lady Shri Ram College on the official Instagram Page of BJP.
Image of the floral arranged shared by anonymous source.
While Ahuja reported to the Indian Express that, “I, staff advisors, faculty and others in the administration have remained in active dialogue with students to address campus concerns”, students report otherwise. During a brief interaction with students on the day of the protest, which multiple attendees reported as lasting less than fifteen minutes, Ahuja reportedly presented documents of communication and stated that the video was originally recorded for the Ministry of Women and Child Development but was uploaded by the BJP without her permission.
When asked if any actions had been taken to get the video removed, the students reported that no such action had been initiated, and that the Principal informed that gathering that she would “consider” sending an email for removal of the video. Similarly, on the second day of the sit-in, that is 16th April, she allegedly did not show up to the auditorium after her presence was requested by the protesting students, who complied with her initial request of an audience at the Auditorium instead of the Lower Foyer.
Following the protest on 15th April, which ended in the Principal walking-off in lieu of what she termed as “disrespect”, the administration of the college sent an email quoting a directive issued by the University of Delhi’s Proctor’s Office on March 23, 2026. The notice emphasised the need for prior approval from the concerned authorities for organising protests and demonstrations on the institution’s grounds. It further said that failing to comply with these requirements could result in disciplinary action, and asked students to follow the directive and continue attending classes.
Screenshot of Notification from LSR Administration.
Multiple students reported that the administration had been calling their guardians and parents to report their involvement in the protest, which they viewed as a clear violation of their rights. Additionally, the Students’ Union of Lady Shri Ram College of 2025-26 and 2026-27 issued a joint statement across liaison groups: they wrote,
We the Student Union of Lady Shri Ram College, wish to state unequivocally that we are not the organisers, convenors, or leaders of the protest currently taking place within the college premises…As elected representatives, our role is limited to facilitating communication and ensuring that the concerns of the students are conveyed appropriately to the relevant authorities.”
As news channels and social media pages continue a widespread reporting on the protest, the students of LSR involved in the sit-ins released a statement through the anonymous Instagram Page to “please represent the truth of our protest to the public so it doesn’t have the false narratives attached to it.” This request comes in light of multiple accounts on X accusing the protestors to be “Left-wing students (backed by terrorist org SFI) [who] not only made the Principal captive but also almost tried to lynch her and her daughter, just because she made a video supporting the women’s bill.”
Multiple such statements trying to relegate the protests to a political party have been actively refuted as the students’ demand remains the same—removal of the video, issuing a public clarification, avoiding external speakers on campus without proper background checks, ensuring all political engagements remain strictly non-partisan on campus, and ultimately reaffirming the institution’s commitment to secular and democratic values.
Multiple students have reported that during the first day of the protest, that is 15th March, a certain faculty member had been recording videos of the protesting students, many of whom were minors, without their consent. On informing the Principal regarding the same, including a case of alleged manhandling by the aforementioned Professor, the Principal reportedly stated that she would believe her colleague over the students in light of an adjacent incident which was brought up without the involved student’s consent. A deletion of such videos and photographs have been immediately demanded by the students, which the Principal reportedly agreed to.
Prominent public figures like Anish Gawande and Akhilesh Yadav have stepped up in support of the protesting students of Lady Shri Ram College; the former wrote on his Instagram story, “Very important clarification. You cannot demand that the students remain apolitical while the administration toes a political line.”
Screenshot of Anish Gawande’s Instagram Story
A student in conversation with DU Beat said,
We’re fighting to protect the ethos of our institution. What we’re seeing right now is a spread of convenient misinformation led by the principal, which is shaping a narrative against her own community, against her own students. That is unacceptable.”
This protest against the actions of Dr. Ahuja is however not the first incident of outrage by the student body of Lady Shri Ram College, but follows the sexist and Islamophobic comments passed by ex-diplomat Deepak Vohra in the presence of the Principal during an event organised within the college.
However, while the outrage continues, it is to be noted that while the online community of students supporting the protest remains at large numbers of 1000+ across multiple channels, on-campus limited students have actively engaged in the sit-ins. At the same time, student responses have been mixed; while a section of the students are concerned about institutional consistency and the larger implications of the Principal’s involvement on a particular party’s platform, others wholeheartedly welcome her stance. They emphasise an individual’s right to participate in public affairs, especially those involving women’s representation; a LinkedIn user from LSR writes,
“At the end of the day, she is not only our Principal but also an individual entitled to her own thoughts and opinions, just as each of us.”
On this, Principal Ahuja reported to Times Now, “Roughly 175 students participated in the protest out of around 4000 enrolled on campus. They do not represent the majority.” The separation of the personal from the political has at large remained the cause of support towards the Principal’s video, which claims to remain stationed only upon the Bill, and not upon the political party.
These recent developments across Delhi University and in particular within LSR, with respect to the conversations between the students and the administration during times of dissent, which remain inconclusive, point to a larger question of autonomy, authority, and hierarchy within college spaces, particularly on colleges that allege to be ‘apolitical’ but in practice remain otherwise. If to be or not to be [political] is the question, then the shaping of this incident, especially for a campus like LSR which has a long-standing history of intellectual inquiry, student engagement, and expression of free speech, shall determine the long-term implications of how college spaces are reconstructed, for both the students and the administrators.
Caste survives by making oppression feel deserved and superiority feel accessible. In such a system, everyone is both oppressed and oppressor.
How does one preserve a system of oppression? You convince them that their place in society isn’t imposed, it’s deserved and therefore personal. Capitalism tells you that your lack of hard work brought you here. Caste tells you that your karma brought you here. But here’s where it goes a step further—it tells you that you are still better off.
“The oppressed tend themselves to become oppressors”, says Paulo Freire. However, in this system, we do not have a single oppressor or a single oppressed. While we use loose binaries of upper-caste and lower-caste, Ambedkar identifies a defining feature as “graded inequality”. Nearly every caste has a sub-caste, and every sub-caste has another beneath it. Each layer is granted the psychosocial right to superiority over another. Everyone gets a chance to oppress and to be oppressed.
This isn’t just symptomatic of a system; it’s structurally inbuilt. And this makes caste particularly enduring.
We see graded inequality in the shunning of marriage across sub-castes, in tensions between land-owning OBC communities and landless Dalits, and in the contempt sometimes directed toward sewer workers and sanitation labourers even within marginalised groups. The system offers just enough social power to prevent the question, “Why am I oppressed?” It consoles you with the maxim that “at least I am not them”.
A system is born where oppression feels like power, serving as nicotine to its dignity-starved victims. Marxist thinkers locate “false consciousness” as a feature of capitalism, the misrecognition of one’s position within capitalism. Caste does something more relational. Violence and discrimination towards the rung below you don’t feel like a replication of your oppression. It feels like a distance from it. It feels like upward immobility.
Some have pointed to this dynamic in examining domestic violence in Dalit households. Persistent humiliation and economic frustration can cause emasculation and frustration, which is sometimes displaced onto women in the household. Dalit women thus become the “oppressed of the oppressed”. Systematically refusing respect and opportunity often reproduces microcosms of the hierarchies. Caste functions neatly, offering another layer to produce internally engineered exclusion.
Sub-oppression also operates through aspiration. M.N. Srinivas’ concept of Sanskritisation describes how marginalised castes imitate upper-caste rituals, food practices, and cultural codes to pursue social mobility. But imitation often means the preproduction of exclusion. Distancing oneself from those deemed “impure”—through altered food patterns, marriage boundaries, or discriminatory practices—becomes a performance of respectability. In seeking validation from a savarna order, one internalises its hierarchies.
To Ambedkar, fraternity was the moral foundation of democracy, a recognition of shared humanity and shared humiliation. Graded inequality makes such recognition impossible. It does not just institutionalise inequality—it actually incentivises complicity. When society is arranged in a descending order of worthiness, it prevents horizontal solidarity from forming. Each group negotiates its oppression by asserting dominance over another, fragmenting anger and replacing it with competitive hierarchy.
How do you revolt when you are both victim and perpetrator?
