The central University of Kashmir: On Rights, Protests and Representation

“Bolo ke lab azad hain tere

Bolo zubaan ab tak teri hai”

– Faiz Ahmed Faiz

Speak, for your lips are free. Speak, your tongue is still yours.

Introduction and course of action:

At the Central University of Kashmir (CUK), democracy is taught but rarely practiced. Despite offering courses in governance, human rights, and political theory, the institution has functioned since inception without any elected student body or formal mechanism for student representation. No student union exists. No elections have been held. There has never been an official answer or a formal policy. The dispersal of KUSU (Kashmir University Students Union) worsened the situation

The administration is reluctant to engage with students and it was substantiated in July 2024, when tuition fees were abruptly increased mid-semester without any justification or rationale. Students across departments responded with non-violent and well-articulated protests, demanding transparency, and rollback of unjustified charges. The administration, however, offered only token rollbacks and invoked on-paper schemes like the Student Aid Fund which, to date, remains largely inaccessible.

Subsequently, a Right to Information (RTI) filed by the Jammu and Kashmir Students Association (JKSA) revealed that no official government ban exists on student unions either at CUK or at the University of Kashmir. The administration had been following a verbal directive, issued informally over 15 years ago [1]. This revelation abolished the longstanding narrative used to suppress student union demands and exposed the absence of legal or regulatory grounds for continued denial of representation.

The financial burden on students has also grown heavier. CUK reportedly charges significantly higher tuition and miscellaneous fees than its peer, the University of Kashmir, despite offering inferior infrastructure, no hostels, and minimal academic or career support. According to UGC norms under the Choice-Based Credit System (CBCS), institutions may apply a 35% hike in certain circumstances, but CUK’s fee structures often exceed this benchmark, and remain opaque in breakdown [2].

With no union in place, students are denied the ability to collectively negotiate or challenge these conditions. Grievances become personal burdens, isolated and easy to ignore. In a region long defined by youth-driven civic engagement from student-led political initiatives to active youth wings of mainstream parties the suppression of campus democracy at CUK is not merely administrative inertia. It is a form of institutional exclusion.

Effect of Student voice on Campus development:

Student participation in institutional governance has historically played a transformative role in the development of universities all over the nation. Across the World, and in our country, there have been endless student representatives that have kept alive the bedrock of democratic government, ensured accountability, and contributed to welfare.

In the Indian context, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Delhi University (DU) serve as case studies of effective student representation. The JNU Students’ Union (JNUSU), has been instrumental in demanding for academic calendar reforms, hostel fee cuts, and mental health support initiatives. In 2019, following democratic protests, JNUSU negotiated a partial downward revision of fees for the students belonging to Economic Weak Students category.[4] Similarly, the Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) has advocated for changes in examination structures and campus security measures.

Internationally, the United Kingdom’s National Union of Students (NUS) has influenced policy on tuition fees, mental health services, and sexual harassment guidelines on campuses.[5] These examples show how for the smooth functioning of an institutional structure, top-down administration is not sufficed. The bottoms up approach such as the student movement is abecedarian to functioning of universities in a democratic manner.

The absence of student unions, on the other hand, can lead to authoritativeness in decision-making and delayed institutional responsiveness and shallow unaccountability. Universities, which have never had any elected student body, demonstrates this risk.

Moreover, research suggests a correlation between student representation and retention. A 2018 study by the European Students’ Union (ESU) found that universities with more participatory collaborative structures reported better academic engagement, higher retention rates, and greater student satisfaction. [6] In contrast, institutions that excluded students from decision-making reported lower campus trust levels and increased dropout risks.

In Jammu & Kashmir, the situation is further complicated by the region’s socio-political sensitivities, which demands greater not lesser space for student participation and united approach in decision making. Without proper channels for collective expression, student concerns become fragmented, frustrated, and disempowered. A union serves not just as a protest platform but as a forum for participation, co-governance, and democratic learning and better institutional response.

Restoring student voice will never be a topic of symbolic politics but it is very practical need. Universities that invest in student participation are more likely to foster trust, improve responsiveness, and evolve in sync with the needs of their students.

Constitutional framework: The Legality of the Matter:

Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution guarantee all citizens the freedom of speech and expression, and the right to form associations or unions.[7] These rights are not meant to be suspended within university campuses unless subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), such as those related to public order, morality, or national security.

In AIIMS Students Union v. AIIMS, AIR 2002 SC 3057, the Supreme Court of India held that students have a legitimate right to organize and participate in union activities.[8] The Court emphasized that there cannot be a blanket ban on peaceful protests by students under the guise of academic interests. “Freedom of association is part of democratic functioning,” the judgment noted. “A student union, when peaceful and properly regulated, is not an aberration but an extension of participatory democracy.”

Similarly, in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481, the Court acknowledged the autonomy of educational institutions but made it clear that such autonomy does not override the fundamental rights of students. Nothing is above the fundamental right to express. [9] Students, it affirmed, are not “passive recipients of education; they are active stakeholders entitled to civic engagement and democratic participation.

Also relevant is J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645, where the Court held that education is not merely access to classrooms but a tool for empowering dignity, inclusion, and democratic capability.[10] When student voices are denied institutional representation, their civic agency is systematically eroded.

The UGC Guidelines for Student Entitlements (2013) explicitly reinforce these principles. It guarantees students the right to “freedom of thought and expression” and the “right to form associations and unions.”[11] It goes on to assert that students should be allowed to raise concerns “without fear of disciplinary action.” These guidelines draw directly from constitutional protections and are not merely aspirational documents.

At CUK, the absence of a written policy banning student unions does not absolve the university. On the contrary, the fact that a verbal and undocumented ban is being enforced without legal backing reveals an administrative evasion of constitutional duty. This practice violates the doctrine of proportionality, as reaffirmed in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353.[12] The doctrine requires that any limitation on fundamental rights must be necessary, minimal, and proportionate—not arbitrary or undeclared.

Courts in India have consistently taken a pro-rights stance when institutions have attempted to erode constitutional guarantees under the pretext of administrative ease.

The path Forward:

When you have spent years walking the same campus paths, watching buildings age without maintenance, watching peers break down over unresolved complaints, and seeing every fee circular drop without prior discussion you begin to understand that silence is not accidental. It’s designed. But silence does not have to be the end of the story. Across the country, universities have shown that student representation does not have to mean political chaos. It can mean structured participation, guided by codes of conduct, supported by faculty, and rooted in dialogue rather than disruption.

We are not asking for a battleground. We are asking for a bridge. Take Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) for example where student elections are held under a strict Lyngdoh Committee framework. Candidates must meet academic requirements, campaigns are limited in duration and cost, and union activity is bound by decorum. And yet, the union remains a powerful voice in shaping policy, questioning fee hikes, and safeguarding student rights. At Jamia Millia Islamia, there is no formal student union at present, but multiple student councils and department-level representatives help channel feedback, raise department-specific issues, and work in tandem with faculty to address concerns. It is not perfect but it is a model. A start. Even at smaller universities, informal representative structures like grievance cells with elected student members or academic committees with student advisors ensure that the institution hears from its students before making decisions for them.

These examples show that representation doesn’t need to be radical to be effective. It doesn’t require mass mobilisation or campus-wide protests to work. What it needs is intent : an institutional willingness to listen, to include, and to be held accountable.

Representation can take many shapes. It could be a student-elected grievance committee that meets once a month. It could be a digital feedback portal with real-time response timelines. It could even be a rotating panel of class representatives who attend administrative meetings. What matters is that the student voice isn’t treated as an afterthought or an inconvenience but as a legitimate stakeholder in how the university functions.

And the stakes aren’t small. When decisions are made without student input, it creates confusion, resentment, and often, apathy. Students stop believing in the system. They stop engaging. They disengage from academic life, from the community around them, from the very idea that their voice could matter. That disengagement quiet, invisible, but persistent is the real loss. It doesn’t make headlines. But it changes everything.

With a functioning representative body, on the other hand, even the smallest changes begin to feel meaningful. There’s someone to report the broken heater in the hostel, someone to ask for an extension on a submission deadline during a crisis, someone to explain why a sudden hike in exam revaluation fees is unjustified. And most importantly, there’s someone to say: “We’re not okay with this” before the damage is done.

It’s not about rebellion. It’s about responsibility. Students want to be part of shaping the place they spend their most formative years in. They want to contribute to the solutions, not just complain about the problems. But that can only happen if the system invites them in, instead of shutting them out.

Of course, there will be disagreements. There will be debates, delays, even deadlocks. But that’s the point of democracy not that everything runs smoothly, but that everything runs openly. That decisions are taken with scrutiny, not in isolation. That policies are explained, not imposed.

And for universities, that openness doesn’t weaken authority. It strengthens legitimacy. Students don’t just follow rules they understand them. They may even defend them when needed, because they were part of the process that created them. That’s how trust is built.

In a time when the world is shifting, when youth are more aware, more politically conscious, and more connected than ever before, universities cannot afford to remain closed spaces. They must evolve. And that evolution begins with inclusion.

Student representation isn’t a luxury. It’s not even a demand. It’s a democratic minimum.

We don’t need grand promises or token gestures. We need a structure. A seat at the table. And a willingness to hear the voices that have stayed silent for far too long not because they didn’t have something to say, but because they had nowhere to say it.

Conclusion:

There is a quiet kind of irony in a university that teaches democracy but does allow its student to practice it. Students learn the grammar of rights, the theories of participation, the architecture of constitutions while being excluded from the most basic forms of institutional dialogue. There is no headline ban, no sweeping ordinance. Just a silence that stretches semester after semester.

And yet, not all absences are equal. Some are heavy with meaning.

The demand for student representation is not a rebellion instead it is a request for recognition. It needs to be acknowledged. Across the country, student unions have shown that when structured with care, they do not hinder universities they help shape them. They question when needed, support when asked, and keep institutions honest.

To ignore this is to miss the point of education itself: to create thinking individuals who engage not just with books, but with the world around them.

The task, then, is not to impose a model, but to build one thoughtfully. To listen before deciding. To consult before concluding. To recognise that democratic participation is not a threat to order, but its foundation.

For if universities are to remain spaces of learning in the fullest sense, they must not merely teach freedom. They must make room for it.

References:

1. EdexLive, RTI filed by Jammu and Kashmir Students Association (2024), , 'Student union ban based on verbal directive', available at :- Click here

2. Greater Kashmir “CUK students hold protest against fee hike, poor infrastructure” July 2, 2024. Available at :- Click here

3. Brighter Kashmir “CUK Students Protest Fee Hikes, Poor Campus Conditions.”, 3 July 2024, available at :- Click here

4. Times of India JNU students protest over hostel fee hike: Admin announces partial rollback Times of India , November 2019. Available at :- Click her

5. National Union of Students (UK), Policy Campaigns 2020–2022 NUS.org.uk available at :-

6. European Students’ Union, Student Participation in Higher Education Governanc, ESU Policy Paper, 2018, Available at :- Click here

7. Constitution of India , Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), 19(2). Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice. :- Click Here

8. AIIMS Students Union v. AIIMS , AIR 2002 SC 3057. Supreme Court of India.

9. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka , (2002) 8 SCC 481. Supreme Court of India.

10. J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh , (1993) 1 SCC 645. Supreme Court of India.

11. University Grants Commission. UGC Guidelines for Students’ Entitlements , 2013.:- Click here

12. Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of M.P. , (2016) 7 SCC 353. Supreme Court of India.