3 min readNew DelhiAug 22, 2025 06:12 AM IST
First published on: Aug 22, 2025 at 06:12 AM IST
The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought a response from the BR Ambedkar University Delhi (AUD) as a postgraduate student claimed in a plea before the court that she was being “relentlessly harassed” after being expelled allegedly over participation in protests.
Accusing the university of “institutional malice”, advocate Abhik Chimni, arguing on behalf of the student before Justice Vikas Mahajan, told the court on Thursday, “(I’m being) relentlessly harassed…I’m a student…they first throw me out…I’m an easy target (for the AUD).”
Nadia, who was first suspended on March 5 for a period of one year over the alleged violation of code of conduct by participating in protests against an incident of ragging and bullying of a student, had moved the High Court earlier too, highlighting “lapses” on the part of AUD. At the time, Nadia had pointed out that the university’s decision had come without any show-cause notice, statements of charges, notice of disciplinary proceedings or the opportunity of a reasonable hearing.
After the HC intervened, the university had revoked the suspension and agreed to consider the case with due process. The court, while disposing of the petition, had also cautioned that she should not take part in any demonstration, “directly or indirectly related with regard to the incident”.
The student, through her advocate Pranjal Abrol, has now again moved the HC, seeking that the expulsion order, issued against her on June 27, be set aside. She is also seeking the setting aside of the dismissal of the appeal against the expulsion order.
The court was told that she did not participate in any further protests pertaining to the incident in which the AUD had initiated an inquiry, in compliance with the HC’s order passed earlier, and that her expulsion has been reasoned on the ground of her alleged participation in a protest on April 21.
She also highlighted the alleged violation of principles of natural justice by the university. She claimed that she was not allowed to cross-examine the complainant, who is also the only witness as per the university; was not supplied with evidence purportedly relied upon; and was not allowed to adduce her own witnesses and not supplied any inquiry report.
While the university has alleged that Nadia participated in a protest on April 21, which was held to raise several demands, including reopening of AUD main gate, restoration of timings, withdrawal of arbitrary show-cause notices, revocation of suspensions, removal of barricades, enabling mail chain, and withdrawal of the decision banning protests, it refused to consider that Nadia’s presence at the site was only limited to “conversation”.
Justice Mahajan has now issued notice to the university, posting the matter for consideration on October 9.
The student, through her advocate Pranjal Abrol, has now again moved the HC, seeking that the expulsion order, issued against her on June 27, be set aside. 
Share
