Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) is in the news again due to the administration’s apathy. This time, it is because, for the first time in the history of the varsity, the entire central panel of the JNU Students’ Union – comprising the president, vice president, general secretary, and joint secretary – has been rusticated for resisting the installation of facial recognition technology (FRT) in the B.R. Ambedkar central library and for raising the legitimate demand to increase reading space in the library.Those rusticated include former JNUSU President Nitish Kumar, along with the current JNUSU central panel members: President Aditi Mishra, Vice President Gopika K. Babu, General Secretary Sunil Yadav, and Joint Secretary Danish Ali.As an effect of this, JNU now stands without a student union. Many students are protesting against the decision.Along with the demand for the revocation of the rustication order, students have also demanded the implementation of UGC equity rules, the Rohith Act, and the inclusion of the student body in the JNU Academic Council and Board of Studies. Former JNUSU president Nitish Kumar told The Wire that before 2018, as per university statutes, students were part of the Academic Council and the Board of Studies. However, since 2018, there has been no student representation in these important bodies, which directly concern students. He noted that the administration adopted this policy because student representatives would demand accountability, and the administration fears student questioning and wants to implement its agenda without student consent.However, an investigation into the PhD admissions process during the 2021-22 session further substantiated the students’ concerns about how, in the absence of student representation in such bodies, the JNU Academic Council introduced an arbitrary clause into the admission rules, resulting in a serious violation of the spirit of reservation.This esteemed institution, renowned for its academic excellence and commitment to social justice, experienced a serious violation of reservation norms during the 2021-22 PhD admissions cycle. The initial concerns arose when the authors observed differences in the distribution of social category cutoff marks during viva voce at the Centre for the Study of Regional Development (CSRD). In response, the authors filed an RTI application to obtain an explanation and access to the relevant admission records. Through the RTI information, the violation of reservation in the OBC and EWS categories was revealed. This prompted a broader investigation.However, the authors’ efforts to obtain centre/department-wise data across JNU through the RTI process were met with significant delays and restrictions. The JNU administration delayed and restricted access to the requested information, which forced us to file a second appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC). After nearly two years, during which the matter was pursued continuously, the authors of this article finally obtained the complete admission data following CIC intervention. What the RTI revealedThe data received in the RTI response tells a troubling story. An analysis of the data obtained reveals that during the 2021-22 PhD admission cycle, across 27 centres in various schools, reservation norms were violated. Candidates from Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and even Economically Weaker Section (EWS) categories who had secured higher marks in the written examination were denied viva voce calls, raising serious questions about the fairness of the selection process.That year, the structure of the JNU PhD entrance examination assigned 70% weightage to the written test and 30% to the viva voce. The following tables present the findings of our detailed analysis.Table 01: Violation of reservation in viva calling process Centre/DepartmentReserved CategoryReserved Cut-off (70%)General Cut-off (70%)ObservationAfrican Studies (AFSH)OBC39.235General cutoff 4.2 marks lower than OBCAfrican Studies (AFSH)EWS44.135General cutoff 9.1 marks lower than EWSArabic (ARBH)OBC47.635General cutoff 12.6 marks lower than OBCArabic (ARBH)SC38.535General cutoff 3.5 marks lower than SCArabic (ARBH)EWS50.435General cutoff 15.4 marks lower than EWSChemistry (CHEH)EWS39.938.5General cutoff 1.4 marks lower than EWSChinese Studies (CHIH)SC37.835.7General cutoff 2.1 marks lower than SCChinese Studies (CHIH)EWS44.135.7General cutoff 8.4 marks lower than EWSCinema Studies (CMSH)OBC44.843.4General cutoff 1.4 marks lower than OBCComputational Biology & Bioinformatics (TROH)OBC37.835General cutoff 2.8 marks lower than OBCComputer & Systems Sciences (SCSH)SC46.235General cutoff 11.2 marks lower than SCComputer & Systems Sciences (SCSH)EWS35.735General cutoff 0.7 marks lower than EWSDiplomacy & Disarmament (DADH)OBC41.335General cutoff 6.3 marks lower than OBCDiplomacy & Disarmament (DADH)EWS46.235General cutoff 11.2 marks lower than EWSEducation (EDUH)OBC41.338.5General cutoff 2.8 marks lower than OBCEducation (EDUH)EWS39.938.5General cutoff 1.4 marks lower than EWSEnergy Studies (ESPH)ST42.736.4General cutoff 6.3 marks lower than STEuropean Studies (EUPH)SC37.135.7General cutoff 1.4 marks lower than SCEuropean Studies (EUPH)EWS37.135.7General cutoff 1.4 marks lower than EWSGeography (GEOH)OBC38.537.1General cutoff 1.4 marks lower than OBCGeography (GEOH)EWS39.237.1General cutoff 2.1 marks lower than EWSGerman (GERH)SC37.136.4General cutoff 0.7 marks lower than SCGerman (GERH)ST37.836.4General cutoff 1.4 marks lower than STGerman (GERH)EWS37.836.4General cutoff 1.4 marks lower than EWSInformal Sector & Labour Studies (ISLH)OBC41.338.5General cutoff 2.8 marks lower than OBCInner Asian Studies (IASH)OBC40.635General cutoff 5.6 marks lower than OBCInner Asian Studies (IASH)EWS4235General cutoff 7.0 marks lower than EWSInternational Organisation (ORGH)OBC48.344.8General cutoff 3.5 marks lower than OBCInternational Politics (INPH)OBC51.837.1General cutoff 14.7 marks lower than OBCInternational Politics (INPH)EWS57.437.1General cutoff 20.3 marks lower than EWSKorean Studies (KOIH)EWS37.135General cutoff 2.1 marks lower than EWSLatin American Studies (LAMH)EWS43.439.2General cutoff 4.2 marks lower than EWSManagement & Entrepreneurship (SMEH)OBC42.741.3General cutoff 1.4 marks lower than OBCModern History (MODH)OBC48.342General cutoff 6.3 marks lower than OBCNano Sciences (NNSH)OBC51.850.4General cutoff 1.4 marks lower than OBCNational Security Studies (NSSH)EWS47.645.5General cutoff 2.1 marks lower than EWSPhysics (PHYH)EWS42.741.3General cutoff 1.4 marks lower than EWSPolitical Geography (POGH)OBC46.940.6General cutoff 6.3 marks lower than OBCRussian & Central Asian Studies (RCAH)OBC47.641.3General cutoff 6.3 marks lower than OBCRussian & Central Asian Studies (RCAH)EWS50.441.3General cutoff 9.1 marks lower than EWSAuthors’ calculation. Despite the decisive role of written performance, several candidates from reserved categories who outperformed others were excluded at the viva stage and denied viva calls. Table 2: High written score but low viva score patternCategoryNo. of Candidates with ≥60% WrittenAmong them, Viva Score ≤4% AffectedGeneral21673.24%EWS41614.63%OBC1934623.83%SC1143631.57%ST351234.28%Authors’ Calculation. The last column highlights the substantial difference between general category and reserved category students. Among the general category students who scored more than 60% in the written test, only 3.24% scored less than 4% in the viva. In contrast, the same percentage of ST and SC students was 34.28% and 31.57%, respectively. OBCs also report a significant disparity, but comparatively less than SC and ST. Table 3: Number and percentage of candidates by category with viva-voce marks in four ranges based on score distribution patterns (≤5, 6-14, 15-19, ≥20).CategoryTotal no. Of the candidates who appeared in the VivaNo. of Candidates with Viva ≤5 Marks (% of Total)No. of Candidates obtained viva marks between 6-14. (% of Total)No. of Candidates obtained Viva marks between 15-19 (% of Total)No. of Candidates with Viva ≥20 Marks (% of Total)General 61218 (2.94%)7 (1.14%)293 (47.87%)294 (48.03%)EWS11714 (11.96%)51 (43.58%)38 (32.47%)14 (11.96)OBC804216 (26.86%)392 (48.75%)131 (16.29%)65 (8.08%)SC422127 (30.09%)218 (51.56%)52 (12.32%)25 (5.92%)ST13542 (31.11%)74 (54.81%)11 (8.1%)8 (5.92)Authors’ calculations. The table indicates that Unreserved (UR) category candidates achieved significantly higher viva-voce marks, particularly in the two highest score ranges (15-19 and ≥20). Nearly 48.03% of UR candidates scored 20 or above, compared to only 8.08% of OBC candidates and 5.92% each for SC and ST candidates. At the lower end, just 2.94% of UR candidates scored 5 or below, whereas this proportion rose sharply to 26.86% for OBC, 30.09% for SC, and 31.11% for ST candidates. The marks of most SC, ST, and OBC candidates were concentrated in the 6-14 range, as shown in the fourth column of the table.Table 4: How viva-voce was weaponised as a subjective screening tool to disadvantage marginalised groupsMetricGeneralSC + ST CombinedGap (UR – SC/ST)Average Viva18.78.710% with Viva ≤52.94%30.6%-27.66 percentage points% with Viva ≥2048.03%5.92%42.11 percentage points% High Written + Low Viva3%32%29 percentage pointsAuthors’ Calculation. The gaps in viva performance between general and SC/ST students are stark. The average viva gap is 10 points, with general category students scoring much higher. The percentage scoring ≤5 shows a gap of -27.66 percentage points, indicating far more SC/ST students in the extremely low score range. For high scorers (viva ≥20), the gap is 42.11 percentage points, revealing that SC/ST students are far less likely to obtain top viva scores. Sneha Saha, now in the fourth year of her PhD at CSRD, JNU, was one of the victims of this violation of reservation norms. Recalling her experience, she said, “I appeared for the entrance examination and scored higher than the cut-off for the unreserved category, yet I was denied a call for the viva voce. I had no option but to drop that year and wait for the 2022-23 session. Who will give me back that precious year of my life?”Insertion of arbitrary anti-reservation clause in admission policy During the 2021-22 academic session, the Academic Council introduced a special clause in the PhD admission policy that effectively prevented candidates from reserved categories from being considered under the unreserved category, even when they had secured marks higher than the general cut-off in the written examination.This provision departed from well-established judicial rulings. Several judgments of the Supreme Court and various high courts have consistently held that if a candidate belonging to a reserved category secures marks higher than the cut-off for the unreserved category, the candidate must be considered under the unreserved category on merit. Notable judgments affirming this principle include Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. T.L. Yamul (1996), Jitendra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010), and Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021).Miss Saha further added, “The following year, when I finally secured admission after losing an entire year, I came to know about the discrimination that had occurred in the previous admission cycle. I approached the concerned authorities in the administration for clarification and was informed that the clause had been introduced during the tenure of the then vice-chancellor”.It is important to note that then, JNU’s vice-chancellor was Mamidala Jagdish Kumar. He served as vice chancellor from 2016-22. In 2022, he was appointed chairman of the University Grants Commission (UGC).In the following academic session, the clause was quietly withdrawn after the authors of this article started uncovering systematic efforts to tinker with the reservation policy.This policy change was part of a broader pattern of administrative decisions during that period, which clearly undermined JNU’s long-standing commitment to social justice. Not only this, but during his tenure as VC, the university witnessed several highly controversial episodes that drew national attention, from the disappearance of Najeeb Ahmed in 2016 to the attacks by masked goons in 2020. In fact, during his tenure as chairman of the UGC, reported cases of caste-based discrimination across universities in India increased by 118%. Yet, despite all this, the most shameful act is that he was conferred the Padma Shri by the Union government in the field of Literature and Education on this year’s Republic Day.These events, along with arbitrary policy decisions like the anti-reservation clause, reflected how the administration tried to erode critical thinking and weaken social justice in JNU. Why a transparent academic council is necessaryThough JNU student activism has always been pro-social justice, discrimination in the viva voce at the institutional level is not new. Yet, it is the spirit of the progressive forces at JNU that, decades ago, dared to confront these very inequalities – something the UGC is only now acknowledging as caste-based discrimination.Over the years, several committees were constituted to address discrimination in PhD viva voce for SC, ST and OBC candidates. The most notable among them are the Rajiv Bhatt Committee (2012), the S.K. Thorat Committee (2013), and the Abdul Nafey Committee (2016). All these reports documented significant disparities in viva for candidates from reserved categories and issued concrete recommendations to address them.Instead of implementing these recommendations, the administration ironically removed student representation from the Academic Council. The solution, however, goes beyond merely restoring student representation: there is an equally urgent need to include faculty members who embody critical thinking and academic integrity. Only by combining active student representation with principled faculty oversight can decisions affecting admissions and evaluations be truly transparent, accountable, and fair.Now, the role of the viva has substantially increased, particularly after the implementation of the NTA score for PhD admissions. Previously, when the written test carried greater weight than the viva, students from underprivileged communities were allegedly awarded lower marks. If such disparities occurred even when the viva had lesser weightage, one must ask: what could be the potential gravity of discrimination now that the viva weightage, as per findings in the last two admission cycles for PhD programmes under the JRF category, has been significantly increased, apparently to 100%?Mohd Arshid and Rakhohori Bag are research scholars at JNU.