Rampur varsity demolition order puts students at the centre of a legal battle

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan* 

The recent demolition order affecting a significant portion of the buildings at Mohammad Ali Jauhar University (MAJU), Rampur, has once again brought into focus a question that extends far beyond the boundaries of one institution. It raises a larger constitutional and moral dilemma: how should a democratic society enforce the rule of law without jeopardizing the educational future of thousands of students?

The controversy has generated intense political debate, with competing narratives dominating public discourse. Yet beneath the headlines lies a more fundamental concern that deserves careful and balanced consideration. Questions surrounding planning permissions, land use, and regulatory compliance must undoubtedly be addressed. At the same time, the interests of innocent students—who invested their hopes, years of study, and aspirations in the institution—must remain central to any decision. This is not merely a dispute over buildings. It is a test of how a democracy reconciles legality with justice, accountability with proportionality, and enforcement with compassion.

Authorities contend that many buildings within Mohammad Ali Jauhar University were constructed without obtaining the necessary approvals under applicable planning and development laws, and demolition proceedings have reportedly been initiated against several university structures. The university, however, has consistently maintained that many of these buildings were erected before the area came under the jurisdiction of the current planning authority and therefore cannot be judged solely by present-day regulatory requirements. The institution is expected to pursue legal remedies, and ultimately it is the courts that must determine the validity of these competing claims.

Until judicial proceedings conclude, it is important to distinguish between allegations, administrative findings, and final judicial determinations. In any constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, legal disputes are settled in courts—not through public opinion, media trials, or political rhetoric.

Lost amid the legal arguments are those with the greatest stake in the outcome: the students. Thousands of young men and women enrolled at the university did not design buildings, obtain permissions, or oversee construction. They simply sought higher education in good faith. For them, the university represents far more than physical infrastructure. It embodies years of academic effort, classrooms and laboratories, libraries, hostels, research facilities, scholarships, friendships, and hopes for employment and a better future.

Demolishing educational infrastructure without carefully safeguarding these interests risks inflicting irreparable harm on individuals who bear no responsibility for the alleged violations. The cost is measured not merely in bricks and mortar, but in interrupted degrees, delayed careers, lost research opportunities, financial hardship, and emotional distress. In a country where higher education remains one of the strongest avenues for social mobility, such disruption carries consequences that extend well beyond the campus.

India's constitutional framework places exceptional importance on education. Article 21, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, recognizes education as integral to the right to live with dignity. Article 21A guarantees free and compulsory education for children up to fourteen years of age, while the Directive Principles under Articles 41, 45, and 46 underscore the State's responsibility to expand educational opportunities, particularly for disadvantaged communities. Higher education, though governed by separate statutory frameworks, remains central to India's ambition of becoming a knowledge-driven economy. The National Education Policy 2020 repeatedly emphasizes that expanding access to quality higher education is essential for economic development, innovation, and social progress. Every disruption to educational institutions therefore affects not only individual students but also the nation's broader developmental goals.

None of this diminishes the importance of legal compliance. Planning laws exist for sound reasons, including public safety, environmental protection, structural integrity, disaster preparedness, and orderly urban development. If violations have occurred, they deserve proper investigation and, where appropriate, accountability. The rule of law retains its legitimacy only when applied consistently, impartially, and without fear or favour. Selective enforcement undermines public confidence just as surely as complete non-enforcement.

Yet democratic governance requires more than identifying violations. It also requires ensuring that enforcement itself is lawful, proportionate, transparent, and mindful of the broader public interest. Modern constitutional jurisprudence increasingly recognizes the doctrine of proportionality, which requires that state action should not impose greater harm than necessary to achieve a legitimate objective. Indian courts have repeatedly applied this principle while examining whether governmental measures strike a fair balance between public interest and individual rights.

Applied to educational institutions, proportionality raises legitimate questions. Can violations be regularized where the law permits? Can penalties primarily target those responsible rather than innocent students? Can compliance deadlines be established before irreversible action is taken? Can ongoing academic sessions continue uninterrupted? Can hostels, laboratories, and research facilities remain functional until suitable alternatives are available? These are not arguments against enforcement. They are arguments for responsible enforcement.

India has witnessed several instances in which courts have attempted to balance regulatory compliance with the interests of students. Whether involving recognition disputes concerning medical colleges, engineering institutions, or teacher-training colleges, judicial bodies have often distinguished between institutional management and enrolled students. In many cases, courts have sought solutions that preserve academic continuity while simultaneously directing authorities to rectify regulatory deficiencies. The underlying principle has generally remained consistent: students should not become collateral damage for failures attributable to institutional administration.

Universities are not isolated campuses. They sustain local ecosystems involving faculty members, researchers, administrative staff, transport operators, hostels, bookstores, healthcare providers, and countless small businesses. A sudden disruption affects not only enrolled students but also thousands of families and livelihoods connected to the institution. For first-generation learners and economically weaker students, transferring to another university is rarely straightforward. Differences in curriculum, academic credits, fees, hostel availability, and admission timelines often make relocation practically impossible. The social and economic consequences therefore extend far beyond legal compliance.

The debate should never be framed as a choice between enforcing the law and protecting education. A mature democracy should be capable of doing both. If the courts ultimately determine that regulatory violations occurred, those responsible must be held accountable in accordance with law. Simultaneously, authorities should explore mechanisms that minimize disruption to innocent students through phased implementation of judicial directions, supervised compliance measures, protection of ongoing academic sessions, preservation of essential academic and hostel facilities where feasible, and practical arrangements enabling students to complete their education without unnecessary interruption. Such measures uphold both legality and justice.

Public discourse surrounding educational institutions often becomes deeply polarized, with political affiliations and ideological differences overshadowing the substantive issues at stake. Regardless of political perspectives, democratic societies benefit most when discussions remain rooted in facts, constitutional principles, and respect for due process. Before judicial proceedings conclude, sweeping conclusions about legality or guilt should be approached with caution. Equally, concerns about students should never be dismissed as secondary. Evidence-based dialogue strengthens democratic institutions far more effectively than partisan confrontation.

The Mohammad Ali Jauhar University case will ultimately be decided through judicial processes. Whatever the final verdict, it offers an opportunity for policymakers, administrators, educational institutions, and civil society to reflect on a broader principle. The true strength of governance lies not merely in enforcing regulations but in doing so with fairness, proportionality, and humanity. The rule of law, fair and transparent due process, and the protection of students' educational interests are not competing values; they are complementary pillars of constitutional democracy.

Education builds nations, while accountability strengthens institutions. Both are indispensable to a healthy democracy. The real challenge is not simply determining who is legally right or wrong, but ensuring that justice is administered in a manner that protects innocent students while holding those responsible accountable, if violations are established. Laws must be respected, institutions must comply with regulations, authorities must enforce them fairly, and courts must determine the legal outcome. Throughout this process, however, the education, dreams, and future of thousands of students should not become unintended casualties. A society that truly values education must strive to uphold the rule of law without compromising the aspirations of the young people who depend on these institutions for their future.

---

Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan is a freelance content writer and editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, and co-founder of TruthScape, a collective of digital activists working to counter misinformation and disinformation on social media