The Mumbai sessions court’s intervention in the case of nine Tata Institute of Social Sciences students facing investigation for organising an ‘unauthorised’ event to mark the death anniversary of former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba raises serious concerns about the limits of law, academic freedom and civil liberties. While courts are duty-bound to uphold the law and public order, the judge’s warning that the students’ “careers would be ruined” if they acquired a criminal record goes beyond the bounds of judicial caution and risks sending a deeply discouraging message to young citizens.
Courts exist to adjudicate guilt, not to speculate on life outcomes. A judicial remark that equates the registration of an FIR with irreversible professional ruin blurs the crucial distinction between accusation and conviction. Such language risks deepening fear rather than strengthening respect for the law. In university spaces—where debate, dissent, and political engagement are integral to learning—this fear can have a chilling effect on legitimate expression. The issue here is not whether institutions may regulate campus events. They can, and students are expected to comply with established procedures. The concern is one of proportionality. Organising or attending a commemorative meeting does not, by itself, warrant the invocation of criminal law. When procedural lapses are treated as crimes, the law begins to appear punitive rather than corrective.
This case also reflects a broader and troubling pattern. Student activism and dissent are increasingly framed as security or law-and-order problems. Such an approach narrows democratic space and discourages young people from engaging with complex social and political realities. Universities are meant to be spaces for the contestation of ideas, not zones of constant surveillance and implicit threat. Warning students of permanent career damage further undermines the presumption of innocence. A criminal case is not a conviction. To suggest otherwise weakens faith in due process and shifts the focus from establishing facts to instilling fear—something the justice system is not meant to do.
Responsibility does not rest with one actor alone. University administrations must establish clear, transparent procedures for approving events and communicate them effectively. Students must be made aware of rules and consequences without intimidation. Law-enforcement agencies must exercise restraint and discretion, particularly in educational spaces. Ultimately, democratic societies are judged by how they treat dissent and youth engagement. Legal order matters, but so do the freedoms to think, assemble and remember. A measured response can—and must—protect both.