Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) has agreed to grant a sabbatical to linguist Professor Ayesha Kidwai. Why is this news? Because it took the intervention of the Delhi high court to compel JNU authorities to approve her leave. Earlier, the university administration had refused her request citing a decision by its executive council that mandates a seven-year gap between sabbaticals. However, according to JNU’s own ordinances and University Grants Commission (UGC) rules, the required interval is five years, not seven. Since Kidwai had last taken a sabbatical five years ago, she was fully entitled to this leave. Yet, the administration denied her request, defending its stance with an arbitrary executive council decision.
The Delhi high court questioned JNU on whether it could disregard its own ordinances and UGC rules based on an executive council decision. Unable to justify its actions, JNU conceded and granted Kidwai her sabbatical. This episode highlights a glaring lack of communication and dialogue between the university administration and its faculty, forcing teachers to seek judicial intervention for basic rights. The court’s rebuke to the university authorities underscores the need for adherence to established rules.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Over the past decade, JNU administration has frequently been embroiled in legal battles with its faculty. For instance, professor Uday Kumar, who teaches English, was denied leave for a research project without explanation. When he approached the court, the administration was compelled to grant him leave.
Teachers are not only responsible for teaching but also for research, administrative duties and attending seminars. Sabbaticals are designed to provide them with the time needed to focus on research and academic enrichment, which ultimately benefits the university and the broader academic community. Denying such opportunities undermines the very purpose of higher education.
What makes Kidwai’s case particularly troubling is the apparent selective application of rules. Two of her colleagues were granted sabbaticals without adhering to the seven-year cooling-off period, suggesting that her denial was retaliatory. Kidwai has been a vocal critic of the vice-chancellor and the administration, and this seems to have made her a target.
Over the past decade, JNU has employed various punitive measures against dissenting faculty. Chargesheets have been issued against 45 teachers for protesting against the administration. Some retired teachers have been denied pensions and dues, forcing them to approach the court. The administration has even attempted to coerce teachers into withdrawing cases by offering leniency, only to impose new conditions, such as demanding apologies and contributions to the PM Care Fund. Such actions are not only humiliating but also indicative of a deeper malaise within the institution.
Promotions, a basic right for teachers, have been delayed for years, with some retiring without receiving them. In one case, the court ordered JNU to conduct an interview for a promotion, but the candidate was declared ineligible despite meeting all qualifications. This blatant disregard for seniority and merit has led to freshly appointed teachers being given leadership roles, further eroding the university’s academic environment.
The hostile relationship between JNU’s administration and its faculty has become a defining feature of the institution. The administration’s systematic targeting of teachers – through denied promotions, withheld leaves and other punitive measures – has severely damaged morale.
The Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) long-standing animosity toward JNU is no secret. BJP leader Rekha Gupta, recently appointed as Delhi’s chief minister, once called for the university’s closure, labelling its inhabitants as “parasites” and “anti-nationals.” While JNU has not been shut down, it has been systematically dismantled from within. The institution, once a beacon of academic excellence, now stands as a shadow of its former self, its spirit crushed by petty politics and administrative vindictiveness.
JNU’s decline is a cautionary tale of how institutional decay begins with the erosion of trust, dialogue and respect for rules. Unless urgent corrective measures are taken, the university risks losing its legacy entirely.
