OU buckles to students’ outcry, rolls back ban on protests

Hyderabad: After a widespread outcry from students and the teaching community, the Osmania University administration took a significant turn regarding a circular that prohibited protests and sit-ins on campus.

In a statement on Sunday, OU Registrar Prof G Naresh Reddy clarified that the circular issued on March 13 does not impose a blanket ban on student protests or agitations in open spaces within the university.

The restrictions apply specifically to academic and administrative areas within the college departments and administrative premises. The aim of the circular is to prevent disruptions that interfere with the smooth functioning of the university’s academic and administrative processes.

In the circular, the Registrar referred to recent incidents, such as the unauthorised occupation of the Principal’s room at Nizam College, disruptive activities at the University College of Arts & Social Sciences, and the forcible occupation of the Registrar’s Office for over four hours. These actions notably impeded essential academic and administrative work.

“In one instance, a few students remained overnight at the Vice-Chancellor’s office, causing considerable disruption. Despite the university’s ongoing efforts to address student concerns, these interruptions, often occurring without prior notice, have hindered institutional progress. This led to the issuance of the circular,” he added.

Previously, the university authorities expressed concerns that these incidents raised security issues. Consequently, the circular prohibited trespassing, staging dharnas and agitations, raising slogans, and preventing administrative authorities and staff from performing their official duties, besides the use of inappropriate language against university staff and authorities.

On Sunday, in response, members of the ABVP burned copies of the circular and staged a protest outside the Arts College. The protesters alleged that the circular was intended to silence students from voicing their grievances and demanding improvements in facilities. They described it as an attack on their fundamental rights.