 |
| CJI Surya Kant |
There is a certain rhythm to a university convocation. The slow march of academics in their hoods, the rustle of freshly printed parchment, the hollow echo of polished speeches about "nation-building," and the obligatory, almost robotic, applause. It is a ritual designed to project stability—a ceremonial handing over of the torch from the establishment to the next generation.
But what happens when the next generation refuses to take the torch?
That is precisely the question that has been quietly, yet violently, echoing through the corridors of one of India’s most prestigious legal universities. The scene was set for a standard, dignified affair. The Chief Justice of India, Justice Suryakant, was to be the chief guest—the man who would, with a flourish of his hand, confer degrees upon the country’s brightest legal minds.
Yet, in a plot twist that no university handbook could have predicted, 450 students decided that the mirror of morality was more potent than the allure of a degree. They did not just object to his presence; they deconstructed it. They held up that mirror to the Chief Justice, challenging not just his policies, but his very standing in the temple of justice.
The Anatomy of a Revolt: More Than Just a Signature
When we say "450 students," it is easy to get lost in the arithmetic. But numbers in activism are rarely just digits; they are a measure of collective conscience. This was not a rabble-rousing mob. It was a calculated, intellectual stand by the very individuals who are supposed to be the future advocates of the Supreme Court.
The students’ demand was stark and unyielding: "Do not invite him to the campus." Their reasoning was even starker. They declared, with a clarity that must have sent shivers through the administrative block, that they would rather leave the hall empty-handed than accept a degree from Justice Suryakant.
Think about the gravity of that statement. In India, a law degree from a top national university is not just a piece of paper; it is a golden ticket. It is the culmination of years of sleepless nights, gruelling entrance exams, and an almost monastic dedication to jurisprudence. To reject that, to willingly consign yourself to academic limbo, is an act of profound sacrifice.
It speaks to a generation that is no longer content to just "practice" law. They want to humanize it. They are signalling that the paper is worthless if the hands that sign it are stained—at least in the court of public opinion.
When we say "450 students," it is easy to get lost in the arithmetic. But numbers in activism are rarely just digits; they are a measure of collective conscience. This was not a rabble-rousing mob. It was a calculated, intellectual stand by the very individuals who are supposed to be the future advocates of the Supreme Court.
The students’ demand was stark and unyielding: "Do not invite him to the campus." Their reasoning was even starker. They declared, with a clarity that must have sent shivers through the administrative block, that they would rather leave the hall empty-handed than accept a degree from Justice Suryakant.
Think about the gravity of that statement. In India, a law degree from a top national university is not just a piece of paper; it is a golden ticket. It is the culmination of years of sleepless nights, gruelling entrance exams, and an almost monastic dedication to jurisprudence. To reject that, to willingly consign yourself to academic limbo, is an act of profound sacrifice.
It speaks to a generation that is no longer content to just "practice" law. They want to humanize it. They are signalling that the paper is worthless if the hands that sign it are stained—at least in the court of public opinion.
The Elephant in the Auditorium: Why Suryakant?
You might ask, why Justice Suryakant? Why now?
While the specifics of the students' grievances remain layered and complex, the underlying sentiment is clear: a disillusionment with the perceived politicization of the judiciary and a concern over the erosion of institutional sanctity. In recent months, the Supreme Court has found itself at the centre of a maelstrom of political controversies. From the handling of sensitive investigations to the delicate dance between the executive and the judiciary, the "trust deficit" has widened.
For the students, the convocation was not merely a social function; it was a moral stage. To invite Justice Suryakant would be, in their eyes, an act of institutional endorsement. It would signify that the university, a place meant to foster critical thinking, was uncritically bowing to the establishment.
By refusing to accept the degree, the students were performing a radical act of deconstruction. They were effectively saying, "Your authority is only valid if we recognize it." In a hierarchical society that often conflates position with righteousness, this was a revolutionary move.
You might ask, why Justice Suryakant? Why now?
While the specifics of the students' grievances remain layered and complex, the underlying sentiment is clear: a disillusionment with the perceived politicization of the judiciary and a concern over the erosion of institutional sanctity. In recent months, the Supreme Court has found itself at the centre of a maelstrom of political controversies. From the handling of sensitive investigations to the delicate dance between the executive and the judiciary, the "trust deficit" has widened.
For the students, the convocation was not merely a social function; it was a moral stage. To invite Justice Suryakant would be, in their eyes, an act of institutional endorsement. It would signify that the university, a place meant to foster critical thinking, was uncritically bowing to the establishment.
By refusing to accept the degree, the students were performing a radical act of deconstruction. They were effectively saying, "Your authority is only valid if we recognize it." In a hierarchical society that often conflates position with righteousness, this was a revolutionary move.
The Administration’s Tightrope Walk: To Cancel or Not to Cancel?
The university officials, caught squarely between the hammer of student dissent and the anvil of governmental prestige, found themselves in an unenviable position.
On one side, they had the Chief Justice of India—a man of immense constitutional power. Disinviting him would be a diplomatic gaffe of the highest order, potentially straining relations with the Supreme Court and the ruling dispensation. It would also set a dangerous precedent, allowing mob sentiment, even if intellectual, to dictate institutional invitations.
On the other side, they had 450 students, a significant chunk of the graduating batch. Forcing the Chief Justice onto a stage where half the audience is hostile is a recipe for humiliation. A protest, a walkout, or even a silent sit-in during the ceremony would not just embarrass the CJI; it would make the university look like a tinderbox that could not be managed.
Hence, the whispers of "cancelling the convocation."
Cancelling the event is the bureaucratic equivalent of a "none of the above" option. It is a cowardly, yet pragmatic, way to avoid a public relations disaster. By calling off the ceremony, the university avoids the direct insult of disinviting the CJI and avoids the direct confrontation with the students. They can simply cite "unforeseen circumstances" or "logistical issues."
But this move, however smooth, is a massive loss. It robs the students who do want to attend of their moment in the sun. It defeats the very purpose of an academic institution, which should be a space for dialogue, not avoidance.
The university officials, caught squarely between the hammer of student dissent and the anvil of governmental prestige, found themselves in an unenviable position.
On one side, they had the Chief Justice of India—a man of immense constitutional power. Disinviting him would be a diplomatic gaffe of the highest order, potentially straining relations with the Supreme Court and the ruling dispensation. It would also set a dangerous precedent, allowing mob sentiment, even if intellectual, to dictate institutional invitations.
On the other side, they had 450 students, a significant chunk of the graduating batch. Forcing the Chief Justice onto a stage where half the audience is hostile is a recipe for humiliation. A protest, a walkout, or even a silent sit-in during the ceremony would not just embarrass the CJI; it would make the university look like a tinderbox that could not be managed.
Hence, the whispers of "cancelling the convocation."
Cancelling the event is the bureaucratic equivalent of a "none of the above" option. It is a cowardly, yet pragmatic, way to avoid a public relations disaster. By calling off the ceremony, the university avoids the direct insult of disinviting the CJI and avoids the direct confrontation with the students. They can simply cite "unforeseen circumstances" or "logistical issues."
But this move, however smooth, is a massive loss. It robs the students who do want to attend of their moment in the sun. It defeats the very purpose of an academic institution, which should be a space for dialogue, not avoidance.
The Psychology of the "Mirror"
The metaphor of the "mirror" is perhaps the most powerful element of this narrative. Usually, when we think of a judge, we think of a stern, unbiased observer holding a scale. We think of someone who reflects the law back at us.
Here, the students flipped the script. They became the observers. They held up the mirror to the CJI, forcing him to see himself through their eyes. It was a therapeutic, albeit harsh, form of social audit.
In British English, we might call this "taking the stone out of the shoe." It’s uncomfortable, it causes a limp, but it’s necessary to walk properly. The students were essentially saying to the highest court in the land, "We see you. And we do not like what we see."
This act of "mirroring" is deeply tied to the psychology of Gen Z and Millennial activism. They are less likely to accept "because I said so" as a reason. They demand consistency between public persona and private actions. For them, a title—even one as exalted as Chief Justice—does not grant immunity from moral scrutiny.
The metaphor of the "mirror" is perhaps the most powerful element of this narrative. Usually, when we think of a judge, we think of a stern, unbiased observer holding a scale. We think of someone who reflects the law back at us.
Here, the students flipped the script. They became the observers. They held up the mirror to the CJI, forcing him to see himself through their eyes. It was a therapeutic, albeit harsh, form of social audit.
In British English, we might call this "taking the stone out of the shoe." It’s uncomfortable, it causes a limp, but it’s necessary to walk properly. The students were essentially saying to the highest court in the land, "We see you. And we do not like what we see."
This act of "mirroring" is deeply tied to the psychology of Gen Z and Millennial activism. They are less likely to accept "because I said so" as a reason. They demand consistency between public persona and private actions. For them, a title—even one as exalted as Chief Justice—does not grant immunity from moral scrutiny.
The British English Lens: A Matter of Decorum
From a British perspective, there is a profound interest in how the colonies are evolving their democratic ethos. The Indian judicial system, inherited from the British Raj, is predicated on the Crown’s notion of justice being blind and infallible.
However, what we are witnessing here is a post-colonial shift. The young Indians are no longer looking to London or to the old structures for validation. They are creating their own metric for what constitutes a worthy authority figure. The traditionally "stiff upper lip" approach of the legal profession is being met with raw, emotional honesty.
There is a palpable sense of "throwing the teacup out" here. The delicate, polite society that prefers to whisper its dissent in corridors is being replaced by a generation that shouts it from the rooftops.
From a British perspective, there is a profound interest in how the colonies are evolving their democratic ethos. The Indian judicial system, inherited from the British Raj, is predicated on the Crown’s notion of justice being blind and infallible.
However, what we are witnessing here is a post-colonial shift. The young Indians are no longer looking to London or to the old structures for validation. They are creating their own metric for what constitutes a worthy authority figure. The traditionally "stiff upper lip" approach of the legal profession is being met with raw, emotional honesty.
There is a palpable sense of "throwing the teacup out" here. The delicate, polite society that prefers to whisper its dissent in corridors is being replaced by a generation that shouts it from the rooftops.
Rethinking the "Human Touch" in Jurisprudence
One of the most tragic aspects of this entire saga is the disconnect between the judiciary and the public it serves.
Judges are human. They are fallible. But in India, they often reside in an ivory tower, shielded by bureaucracy and protocol. The students, by refusing to accept the degrees, were demanding that the CJI, and the system he represents, acknowledge their humanity.
They were asking: "If you are to be the custodian of our rights, do you truly understand our struggles? Are you just a legal technician, or are you a moral leader?"
By taking this stand, the students have inadvertently started a conversation about the need for empathy in legal education. They are forcing law schools to ask: Are we just producing robots who can recite sections of the Indian Penal Code? Or are we nurturing humans who can feel the weight of a life sentence?
One of the most tragic aspects of this entire saga is the disconnect between the judiciary and the public it serves.
Judges are human. They are fallible. But in India, they often reside in an ivory tower, shielded by bureaucracy and protocol. The students, by refusing to accept the degrees, were demanding that the CJI, and the system he represents, acknowledge their humanity.
They were asking: "If you are to be the custodian of our rights, do you truly understand our struggles? Are you just a legal technician, or are you a moral leader?"
By taking this stand, the students have inadvertently started a conversation about the need for empathy in legal education. They are forcing law schools to ask: Are we just producing robots who can recite sections of the Indian Penal Code? Or are we nurturing humans who can feel the weight of a life sentence?
The Aftermath and the Legacy
As the dust settles, regardless of whether the convocation goes ahead or is cancelled, the ripples of this event will be felt.
For the CJI: He is now in the unenviable position of being a divisive figure. Even if he delivers a landmark judgement next week, the memory of 450 students rejecting him will linger. It creates a crack in the invincibility of his persona.
For the University: This is a testing time. How an institution handles dissent defines its character. If they cancel the convocation, they prove they lack the spine to host tough conversations. If they go ahead, they risk a PR nightmare.
For the Students: They have etched their names into the history books. They have proven that moral courage can sometimes override professional ambition. They are now the torchbearers of a new kind of activism—one that is not violent, but devastatingly articulate.
As the dust settles, regardless of whether the convocation goes ahead or is cancelled, the ripples of this event will be felt.
For the CJI: He is now in the unenviable position of being a divisive figure. Even if he delivers a landmark judgement next week, the memory of 450 students rejecting him will linger. It creates a crack in the invincibility of his persona.
For the University: This is a testing time. How an institution handles dissent defines its character. If they cancel the convocation, they prove they lack the spine to host tough conversations. If they go ahead, they risk a PR nightmare.
For the Students: They have etched their names into the history books. They have proven that moral courage can sometimes override professional ambition. They are now the torchbearers of a new kind of activism—one that is not violent, but devastatingly articulate.
Conclusion: The Verdict of the Young
In the final analysis, this is not just a story about a graduation ceremony. It is a story about accountability. It is a story about the changing nature of power in India.
The 450 students who demanded that Justice Suryakant not step onto their campus have done what the constitution promises but what the establishment often inhibits: they exercised their fundamental right to dissent.
They were not just refusing a degree; they were refusing to be complicit in a system they find broken. They looked at the highest authority in the land and said, "We are not your subjects; we are your citizens. And we have a voice."
Whether the university cancels the convocation or not, the moral convocation of the students has already taken place. They have passed their most important test.
The verdict?
In the court of public conscience, the students have won.
In the final analysis, this is not just a story about a graduation ceremony. It is a story about accountability. It is a story about the changing nature of power in India.
The 450 students who demanded that Justice Suryakant not step onto their campus have done what the constitution promises but what the establishment often inhibits: they exercised their fundamental right to dissent.
They were not just refusing a degree; they were refusing to be complicit in a system they find broken. They looked at the highest authority in the land and said, "We are not your subjects; we are your citizens. And we have a voice."
Whether the university cancels the convocation or not, the moral convocation of the students has already taken place. They have passed their most important test.
The verdict?
In the court of public conscience, the students have won.
