NEW DELHI, Oct. 15: The Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) continued its indefinite hunger strike on Thursday, with student leaders pressing the administration to address a series of demands related to disciplinary action, entrance examinations, gender-sensitisation mechanisms and campus governance.
The protest entered its 12th day on October 15 after beginning on October 3. JNUSU president Aditi Mishra, vice-president K. Gopika Babu, general secretary Sunil Yadav and several other students have been participating in the strike.
The union has put forward a charter of 13 demands, describing them as concerns involving academics, infrastructure, social justice, student welfare and democratic participation. It has said that the administration’s response so far has not provided sufficiently concrete commitments on several central issues.
The latest developments follow a second round of negotiations held on October 12. According to the student union, the discussions did not produce comprehensive assurances on the proposed rollback of the Chief Proctor Office (CPO) Manual, the rustication of union office-bearers or the restoration of the Gender Sensitisation Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH).
The dispute has kept attention focused on student representation and administrative decision-making at one of India’s prominent public universities.
Thirteen demands form the basis of the protest
JNUSU announced the hunger strike with a list of 13 demands intended to address what it described as longstanding problems affecting students across the university.
Among the principal demands is the withdrawal of the CPO Manual, which has become a major point of disagreement between the union and the administration. The students are also seeking the revocation of disciplinary action against JNUSU office-bearers.
Another important demand concerns the restoration of GSCASH, a committee associated with addressing sexual harassment complaints and promoting gender-sensitive campus practices. The union has called for its reinstatement as part of its wider demands relating to student welfare and institutional accountability.
The students are also seeking the restoration of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Entrance Examination (JNUEE). The issue has become a significant component of the negotiations because it concerns the process through which students seek admission to the institution.
The union has linked these demands to broader questions about how academic and administrative decisions are made, how student concerns are addressed and what mechanisms are available for resolving disagreements.
The administration has not agreed to all the demands, according to the union’s account of the latest discussions. As a result, the hunger strike has continued despite the two rounds of negotiations.
Second round of talks fails to resolve key issues
The administration initiated another round of discussions on October 12, after the strike had continued for nine days. Participants reportedly included JNUSU representatives and councillors, associate deans Dr Poonguzhali N. and Jaikhlong Basumatary, the dean of students and the dean of the School of Social Sciences.
According to the union, university representatives indicated that they would examine concerns surrounding the CPO Manual. However, the students said they did not receive a comprehensive response on the rustication of union members or the restoration of GSCASH.
On the question of reinstating JNUEE, the administration cited a lack of funding as a major obstacle, the union said.
The discussions also covered allegations that reservation rules were not being properly followed in hostel allotments. The administration agreed to look into the concerns, according to the union’s account.
JNUSU maintained that further examination of the issues was not enough without specific commitments and a clear path towards resolution. It said that the outcome of the negotiations had not addressed its central concerns and announced that the protest would continue.
The difference in expectations has complicated efforts to end the agitation. While discussions can provide an avenue for resolving disputes, an agreement may require the parties to establish clear timelines, identify the decisions that can be taken immediately and clarify which issues need further examination.
Restoration of JNUEE remains a key concern
The demand for restoring JNUEE has drawn attention to the importance of admission procedures in higher education. Entrance examinations are used by universities to assess applicants and establish eligibility for admission to particular courses.
Any change in an admission system can affect prospective students, their preparation strategies and the way institutions organise their selection processes. Students therefore seek clarity about the procedures through which universities admit candidates and the criteria used to make decisions.
In its discussions with JNUSU, the administration reportedly cited funding constraints in response to the request to restore the examination. The union, however, has continued to press for the issue to be addressed.
Resolving the disagreement would require consideration of the university’s financial and administrative capacity, the practical arrangements needed to conduct an entrance examination and the concerns raised by students about the existing admission framework.
The matter also illustrates how decisions affecting academic access can become part of wider campus disputes. For prospective applicants, clear communication about admission policies is essential for planning their education and preparing for selection procedures.
At present, the available reporting does not indicate that the administration has committed to restoring JNUEE. The demand remains among the issues being raised by the protesting students.
GSCASH and concerns about student welfare
The union’s demand to reinstate GSCASH is another major element of the agitation. Mechanisms for addressing sexual harassment are important in educational institutions because they provide a formal framework for reporting complaints, examining allegations and supporting a safer academic environment.
Students have argued for the committee’s restoration as part of their broader demand for institutional accountability and welfare protections. According to the union, the latest negotiations did not produce a comprehensive response on this issue.
Any decision concerning such mechanisms has implications for the way complaints are received, the procedures followed and the confidence students place in the institution’s systems.
Universities must maintain appropriate arrangements for addressing sexual harassment and ensuring that complaints are handled through established procedures. Clear policies, accessible reporting channels and awareness among students and staff are important components of campus safety.
The union’s demand therefore extends beyond the immediate dispute over disciplinary action. It raises questions about the institutional structures available to students and how those structures are maintained.
The administration’s response to the issue is likely to remain a focus of further discussions as the protest continues.
Disciplinary proceedings add another dimension
The ongoing strike is also unfolding alongside separate disciplinary proceedings involving JNUSU president Aditi Mishra.
In a notice issued on October 9, the university asked Mishra, a PhD student, to appear before a proctorial committee on October 22. The notice concerns allegations of manhandling security personnel and damaging campus property during a protest on September 8.
The allegations remain subject to the university’s disciplinary process. JNUSU has also claimed that between 10 and 12 other students received similar notices over their alleged involvement in the September demonstration.
The disciplinary proceedings have added to tensions between the union and the administration, particularly because the hunger strike includes a demand to revoke the rustication of student representatives.
For universities, disciplinary procedures must establish the circumstances of an incident and determine whether rules were violated. Students, meanwhile, may challenge actions they consider unfair or disproportionate.
A transparent process can help clarify the allegations, provide an opportunity for the concerned students to respond and explain the basis for any decision. The outcome of the proceedings involving Mishra is separate from the broader negotiations over the union’s 13 demands, although the issues have become intertwined in the continuing campus dispute.
Hostel reservation concerns also raised
Hostel allotment emerged as another issue during the latest round of discussions. The union alleged that reservation provisions were being violated in the allocation process, with vice-president Gopika Babu raising concerns about what the students described as reverse reservation.
According to the union, the administration agreed to examine the allegations. No final finding on the matter was reported in the available account of the negotiations.
Hostel allocation is an important welfare issue, particularly at universities where students depend on campus accommodation to pursue their studies. Transparent eligibility criteria and clear application procedures can help ensure that available places are distributed according to established rules.
Where reservation provisions apply, institutions must follow the relevant requirements and provide clarity about the basis on which allotments are made. Any allegation of irregularity requires careful examination of records and applicable policies before conclusions can be reached.
The issue adds to the range of concerns being discussed during the hunger strike and demonstrates that the dispute encompasses both academic policies and the practical conditions of student life.
University administration faces pressure to find a resolution
The continuation of the protest places pressure on both sides to find a way forward. The students have indicated that they are unwilling to end the strike without progress on their demands, while the administration must address the concerns within the university’s rules, resources and decision-making processes.
A negotiated resolution could involve identifying which matters can be decided immediately and which require legal, financial or administrative review. Setting out a timetable for further discussions may also help prevent uncertainty from prolonging the dispute.
The university could use the negotiations to explain its position on the CPO Manual, disciplinary action, GSCASH, entrance examinations and hostel allotment. The union, meanwhile, is seeking commitments that go beyond assurances that the matters will be examined.
The outcome will depend on whether the parties can identify mutually acceptable steps while maintaining academic operations and ensuring that the rights and responsibilities of students and university officials are respected.
The hunger strike has also brought wider questions about student participation in university governance into focus. Student unions often serve as a channel through which learners communicate concerns about facilities, policies and welfare. Effective consultation can help institutions identify problems and reduce the likelihood of prolonged confrontations.
Next steps and the road ahead
As of October 15, the hunger strike remained underway, with the union continuing to seek action on its demands. The university has not announced a comprehensive settlement covering all the issues raised by the students.
The proctorial committee hearing involving Mishra is scheduled for October 22, while further engagement between the administration and student representatives may be necessary to resolve the outstanding disagreements.
The immediate challenge is to move the dispute from competing statements towards a process that produces verifiable decisions. This would require clarity on the university’s position, consideration of the concerns raised by students and a transparent explanation of any final outcomes.
For students, the issues at stake include admission procedures, disciplinary rules, welfare protections and access to institutional decision-making. For the university, the situation presents a challenge in balancing administrative authority with consultation and accountability.
The continuation of the protest shows that the negotiations have yet to bridge the gap between the two sides. Whether further dialogue can achieve that goal will depend on the willingness of the administration and the student union to reach specific, workable arrangements.