Chandigarh: The four conditions listed below are a sample of the eleven-point affidavit that Panjab University, Chandigarh – India’s fourth-oldest university – has made mandatory for all new students. Ever since these rules kicked in, from the ongoing academic session, students have been protesting against them, even approaching the high court, citing violation of their academic and constitutional freedoms.That I would seek prior permission for organising any protest, dharna, or rally.That I would organise such a protest only for the settlement of my genuine and justifiable grievances.That I would not create noise pollution during any dharna. That the authorities would be free to debar me from examinations or even cancel my admission in case of repeated violations of these conditions.On November 11, student leader Archit Garg’s petition, against these and all other conditions, filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in July, will come up for a fresh hearing. Garg’s petition alleges mala fide intent behind the administration’s affidavit: it is stifling students’ right to freedom of speech and expression as well as their right to freely assemble and protest peacefully, it says.While the university says that signing off on the conditions in the affidavit is a necessary step to ensure campus discipline and prevent disruption of the academic environment, students say it reflects the expanding boundaries of institutional control, infringing on their democratic rights.A determined student movement is underway in the campus, fighting this affidavit tooth and nail, even as students await the outcome of the battle in court.GenesisThe mandatory affidavit came to light in June, after university authorities released a ‘Handbook of Information’ – a document detailing the various courses and programmes being offered. It did not initially get much attention, but as each department began asking the new entrants – as well as old students – to submit the signed affidavits from September on, it escalated into a major bone of contention.Many believe that the roots of this controversy can be traced to events from last when, when students launched a protest demanding the revival of the University Senate – its main governing body. That body has now been defunct for over a year.Also read: With No Senate in Place, Panjab University is Losing its Democratic StatusOne such protest, in November 2024, coincided with a visit of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann to the university, and several students had gathered to voice their concern over the delay holding senate elections and constituting the body.However, before they could reach the chief minister, police and security personnel stopped the students, and a clash ensued. Soon after, the university administration lodged a complaint, leading to an FIR against the protesting students.The university alleged that the students created a nuisance outside the vice-chancellor’s office and that they had not sought permission for organising it, making it unlawful.Tensions on campus deepened when tragedy struck during a ‘star night’ event held in March 2025 – one student tragically died, sending shockwaves across the university. Thereafter, grief-stricken students staged sustained protests demanding accountability and alleging gross negligence and failure to ensure safety during the event on part of the administration .It is in these circumstances that the university authorities decided to compel students to sign the new affidavit, which relates largely to their holding protests or raising issues within campus.Panjab University student council members hand a memorandum to V-C Renu Vig, demanding withdrawal of the new mandatory affidavit, on September 25. Photo: by arrangement.Garg, a second-year student in the Department of Human Rights and Duties told The Wire that the university’s move “cannot be seen in isolation”. The affidavit is, according to him, rooted in a pattern of administrative overreach that began with the university approaching the police during the senate revival protests last year. He also accused the university of cancelling events without due cause all this year. That, according to him, has culminated in an institutional attempt to suppress democratic student activism.According to Garg, if the university genuinely intended to regulate protests, it could have simply issued clear guidelines – as is done elsewhere – and strengthened its own security protocols to prevent untoward incidents. “Instead,” he said, “it chose to impose a document that strips students of their fundamental rights.”Of all the conditions mentioned in the affidavit, the most controversial one is the last: point number 11. It stipulates that students who violate affidavit conditions, or participate in protests, demonstrations or rallies organised by student unions or other groups that breach these guidelines, may face severe consequences.They could be barred from appearing in examinations and, in cases of repeated violations, their admission may be withdrawn.The university’s defenceIn a reply filed last month before the high court in response to Garg’s petition, university authorities argued that the affidavit is not frivolous but had become necessary due to a history of violent agitations, demonstrations and dharnas by students and their unions. It said that FIRs had been registered due to these protests, and university property had suffered damage.The administration argued that it had to file civil suits for interim injunctions (on August 21, 2024 and December 18, 2024) to prohibit students and union members from blocking passages, roads, main gates or causing inconvenience to officials, staff, students and visitors. It claimed that the new affidavit was required of all students – whether or not they were party to the injunctions – to prevent the multiplicity of litigation and ensure the court orders are not violated, especially by newcomers.It also claimed that the action aligns with Supreme Court mandates (in the Vishwa Jagriti Mission and University of Kerala cases) emphasising that discipline must be maintained within an institution by authorities to avoid police action, marginalise criminal-minded students and protect the peaceful academic atmosphere and the fundamental rights (Articles 19 and 21) of the majority of students and others on campus.Also read: ‘Quitting Not Enough, Need Inquiry,’ Say Teachers as PU V-C Resigns Amidst Graft AllegationsIt denied that the affidavit curtails students’ fundamental rights, and instead claims to balance those rights with the larger interest of maintaining a conducive academic environment.According to it, students can form unions, express views and hold peaceful protests. However, only at the designated spots and after intimation/permission from the competent authority.Students unconvincedBut Panjab University students are not convinced. On October 16, a large number of students took out a “mashaal march” to protest its imposition on students and strongly demanded its withdrawal. Earlier on October 13, student political parties held a joint meeting in which they decided to continue mobilising students until the affidavit was withdrawn.On October 2, students observed Dussehra by burning copies of the affidavit, terming it the “real evil” within the university. On September 25, the Student Council, an elected body of students on campus, had submitted a formal resolution to the vice-chancellor, calling for the immediate withdrawal of the affidavit. As per the latest information, students and their political parties have formed a new collective forum that plans to launch an indefinite protest on campus starting October 30.Manpreet Kaur, a student in the Department of Political Science, told The Wire that the very legality of the affidavit is questionable, as the university’s senate has not even been reconstituted yet. “This document is being implemented without the senate’s approval, which makes the entire process undemocratic,” she said.Students hold a mashaal march against the mandatory affidavit introduced by Panjab University in 2025. Photo: by arrangement.She pointed out that while the university administration claims the affidavit will identify and deter ‘criminal-minded’ students, its real purpose appears to be instilling fear and compliance. “For instance, as per the affidavit, I can only protest for my genuine and justifiable grievances. But question is who is deciding it? Going by this affidavit, the university will have power to decide legitimacy of the dissent itself,” she said.Signing the affidavit would mean students surrendering their right to protest, she believes, for university authorities can claim that an issue being raised through protests is unacceptable in their eyes. In 2018, students held huge protests against the university over fee hikes. “Can we expect similar protests under the new affidavit’s rules if the university hikes fees exorbitantly again,” she asked.“By compelling every student to forgo their right to protest, the university is effectively replacing constitutional discipline with bureaucratic control,” Manpreet added.Deeksha Verma, another Department of Political Science student, said that the university claims before the High Court that the affidavit does not curtail fundamental rights, in practice, it is a precondition to seeking admission and suppresses democratic participation. “In one department, the chairperson forced students to sign pre-filled affidavits without their consent. In another, students were denied their original documents until they submitted the affidavit. These incidents expose the university’s increasingly coercive and suppressive approach,” she said.Deeksha argued that by explicitly restricting ‘protest, rally, dharna, etc.’, the affidavit effectively stifles seminars, discussions, debates – and healthy intellectual exchange itself. “It amounts to penalisation of student activism under the guise of discipline,” she added.Students believe the affidavit is an unnecessary step, as the university already has enough legal powers to take administrative action if there is violence or misconduct within the campus.Vivek Gupta is a Chandigarh-based journalist. He can be reached at @journoviv.