The procession broke through barricades at JP Golambar, advancing to Dak Bungalow Chowk amid heavy security. Scuffles broke out, with police detaining a few agitators temporarily before releasing them. What began as a march culminated in a fervent rally at the chowk.

Protesters slammed the growing caste-based discrimination and oppression in higher education, insisting on expanded and strictly enforced reservations for deprived sections. AISF state chief Sudhir Kumar pointed to persistent bias against Dalit, tribal, and OBC students, noting that despite court cases and reports, authorities have failed to act decisively.

Rinku Yadav, the forum’s state convener, steered the proceedings. Karakat MP Raja Ram Singh took the stage, promising parliamentary intervention and declaring Bihar’s renewed role as the vanguard of social justice battles. Speakers like former MLA Amarjeet Kushwaha and MLA Sandeep Saurabh emphasized that equitable education is the bedrock of democracy, urging sustained youth activism.

The event signals a broader movement against educational inequities, with participants vowing no retreat until justice prevails.

Eyewitnesses reported slogans not only against Brahminism but also wishing destruction upon BJP and RSS, laced with divisive caste rhetoric. ABVP’s Priyanshu condemned these as assaults on democratic norms. ‘Taxpayers fund JNU for education, not to breed calls for societal demolition,’ he stated firmly.

PhD student Krishna Kant Dwivedi echoed the sentiment, calling the protest a disgraceful bid to incite rebellion. He questioned the intent behind targeting millions of RSS volunteers and splitting the nation. The left’s flip-flop post-court stay revealed their ideological fragility, he added.

JNUSU activists maintained the ruling favors outdated caste hierarchies. This episode highlights JNU’s recurring role in national debates, where academic freedom collides with political fervor. As both sides dig in, observers worry about escalating campus confrontations and their broader implications for higher education in India.

At the heart of the challenge is Section 3C’s redefined discrimination, which petitioners claim skews constitutional intent by confining protections to select categories. Vishnu Shankar Jain, a seasoned counsel, emphasized that India’s Constitution safeguards every citizen equally, not subsets alone. This ‘incomplete’ definition risks fragmenting unity in academia.

The bench delved into practical scenarios. Chief Justice Suryakant highlighted inter-regional biases—South Indian students mocked in the North without caste angles. Jain pointed to Section 3E as the safeguard for birthplace prejudice.

Another key grievance: the puzzling removal of ragging clauses. Lawyers warned of chaos, where innocent newcomers from open categories could face immediate criminalization. ‘Freshers jailed on day one?’ they queried, painting a dystopian educational future.

Chief Justice Suryakant’s poignant observation cut deep: Seven decades post-freedom, caste shadows linger. He grilled if the new rules exacerbate divisions. The court flagged ambiguous wording ripe for abuse, with Justice Bagchi probing overlapping sections like 2C and 2E.

As Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the constitutional angle, petitioners offered to draft superior alternatives. The stay underscores judicial vigilance, ensuring higher education remains a level playing field for all.

In an IANS interview, Tikait recounted the swift public uproar that caught judicial attention. ‘Courts demanded full disclosure of documents to scrutinize shortcomings and decide on amendments or suspension,’ he explained.

Urging stakeholder consultations, especially with castes perceiving harm, Tikait cautioned against national fragmentation. ‘Repeated caste-based conflicts could splinter India, making collective action in tough times unfeasible,’ he observed.

Tikait portrayed the rules as a government ploy yielding no real losses for those in power. ‘Angry voters threatening NOTA or abstention only aid incumbents, who continue unchallenged,’ he pointed out, critiquing electoral dynamics.

He alleged deliberate caste polarization to proliferate lawsuits. ‘While SC groups may lack resources, others—better educated—can manipulate the system. Legal actions must align with constitutional equity,’ Tikait stressed.

Thursday’s apex court ruling paused the impugned UGC norms following multiple challenges. Directing a return to 2012 guidelines, justices scheduled further proceedings for March 19. This interim order highlights tensions between regulatory overhaul and reservation protections in academia.

In a candid interview, Swami Avimukteshwaranand dissected the flaws in the new framework. ‘No caste is born unjust; goodness and vice exist in all,’ he stated firmly. He lambasted the UGC for fostering antagonism between communities, predicting dire consequences for Hinduism. ‘This is a dangerous game that could dismantle our shared heritage. Roll back these rules now,’ he demanded.

Delving deeper, the Swami portrayed the regulations as a sinister strategy to erode Hindu solidarity through engineered rivalries. ‘Is this the kind of leadership we deserve—one that fans flames of division under the guise of reform?’ he challenged, highlighting the absence of any sound rationale.

The dramatic resignation of senior official Alankaar Agnihotri in Bareilly became a focal point. Swami Avimukteshwaranand hailed it as a profound sacrifice. ‘Quitting a prestigious position speaks volumes about the pain inflicted on Sanatan Dharma adherents by state policies. History will judge this moment harshly,’ he predicted.

Adding weight to the movement, Jagadguru Paramhans Acharya announced a letter to PM Modi, pleading for the guidelines’ withdrawal or, in extremis, euthanasia rights. ‘These rules will thrust general category girls—comprising 35 percent—into vulnerability, inviting exploitation and crime while robbing youth of fair education,’ he cautioned.

This uprising from the spiritual realm signals a critical juncture for India’s education policy. As voices from temples and ashrams amplify, policymakers must weigh the risks of persistent unrest against the promise of equitable reforms, ensuring no community is left behind.

It has held that the ministry should re-evaluate Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) funding allocations and ensure that none of the states are placed in “disadvantageous positions for not accepting NEP 2020 or the PM SHRI Scheme”. It has argued that the SSA predates PM SHRI and enforces the fundamental right-based RTE law and hence cannot be bypassed by the NEP, which was an executive policy statement.

“These states have been compelled to use their own funds to pay salaries to teachers and resource personnel due to delays in release of central allocations…. The withholding of funds is severely impacting teachers’ salaries, RTE reimbursements, and transportation for students in remote areas,” the panel said terming the withholding of funds under SSA to states for not entering into MoUs for separate schemes like PM SHRI is ‘not justifiable’.

Live Events