Students irked over Pondicherry varsity’s new code of conduct

Pondicherry University's controversial Proctorial Board Regulations spark debate over student rights and disciplinary measures on campus.

The notification of a Proctorial Board Regulations and code of conduct for students and scholars of the Pondicherry University on Saturday has triggered a row between the student community and the administration.

The code of conduct, which seeks to enforce discipline on the campus, uses broad terms such as “decorous manner” of behaviour and provides for imposing a penalty of up to ₹6,000 for “any act of moral turpitude”. Besides, the university has included hunger strikes, dharnas, group bargaining and any other form of protest within 100-metre radius of any academic and administrative building as an offence with possible punishments including fine up to ₹10,000 and up to two semesters’ eviction from the hostel.

Condemning this, the Pondicherry University Students’ Council said that this was a way of introducing undefined moral standards “which could be weaponised against students voicing dissent”. The council accused the university administration of “criminalising expression and participation” and “silencing dissent” with punishments that “overreach legal boundaries”.

However, Y. Venkat Rao, Dean of Student Welfare, defended the codes saying they are in line with regulations enforced in other Central universities and are intended to maintain discipline among the students for a healthy academic environment on the Campus.

He said the provision for Proctorial Board, as per the Pondicherry University Act, 1985, was left unused for nearly 40 years, but with the university expanding and adding courses, it became necessary to constitute the board to ensure that disciplinary processes were carried out by following principles of natural justice without any disturbance to curricular activities. He added that “composition of the board consists of all categories including representation from minority, women and Northeast region”.

The council, however, contended that the code listed activities of anti-national nature among “misconducts of level 1”, while protests near the academic and administrative building was listed as “misconduct of level 2”. It questioned the logic behind such classification of misconducts.

The council has added that the code, which rules out appeals in cases where only fines are imposed and gives the Proctorial Board power to take suo motu cognisance of offences, gives unchecked powers to Chief Proctor and undermines democratic processes and called for withdrawal of the regulations.