NEW DELHI – The Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers’ Association (JNUTA) has strongly condemned the recent suspension of Professor Virendra Balaji Sahare by Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI). JNUTA labeled JMI’s action as “illegal, arbitrary, and an unacceptable policing of academic thought.” Professor Sahare serves in the Department of Social Work at JMI.
JMI suspended Professor Sahare over alleged “negligence and carelessness” in setting a university examination paper. Professor Sahare was the designated paper setter for the BA (Hons) Social Work course’s semester exam. The course title is “Social Problems in India,” making the content of the question particularly relevant. The Jamia Vice-Chancellor initiated and issued the suspension order following these allegations.
Legal Basis of Suspension Challenged
JNUTA immediately contested the legal grounds for the suspension. The teachers’ association stated that the suspension order invokes JMI’s Statute 37(1). This specific statute grants the Vice-Chancellor authority to suspend a teacher when there is “an allegation of misconduct.”
However, JNUTA cited established Supreme Court rulings to argue against this application. They highlighted that negligence or carelessness, even if assumed or proven, does not legally constitute “misconduct” for the purpose of initiating disciplinary proceedings and suspension. This distinction is crucial in employment law within educational institutions.
The JNUTA further pointed out critical deficiencies in the suspension order itself. The order fails to specify the exact nature of Professor Sahare’s alleged negligence or carelessness. Crucially, it does not cite any specific university rule or regulation that Professor Sahare purportedly violated. Instead, the order vaguely refers to “several complaints” received from unnamed sources concerning the content of the examination paper.
Academic Freedom Under Attack
The core of the controversy stems from an optional question included in the BA (Hons) Social Work semester exam. This question asked students to discuss “atrocities against Muslim minorities in India.” JNUTA firmly asserted that the appropriateness and validity of academic content cannot be determined by the personal preferences, likes, or dislikes of individuals or groups.
JNUTA’s statement articulated a strong defense of academic autonomy. It warned that extending academic disagreements or differences of opinion to the point of policing academic thought fundamentally undermines the spirit of free inquiry, questioning, and robust debate. The association stressed that a university cannot maintain its identity or purpose if it succumbs to such practices.
The statement posed a significant rhetorical question about the broader implications for academic discourse. “The real problem would arise if such questions were to be excluded from academic inquiry and discussion,” JNUTA stated. They further questioned whether topics like caste atrocities, various forms of discrimination, or issues related to the oppression of women would also have to be similarly censored simply because certain individuals found them objectionable.
Call for Immediate Revocation
JNUTA described Professor Sahare’s suspension as an “academic witch hunt,” suggesting a targeted and unwarranted action. The association issued a clear demand for the immediate revocation of the suspension order. They emphasized that such actions not only harm individual faculty members but also threaten to severely undermine the fundamental autonomy and credibility of higher education institutions across the country.