JNU under lens as university's legal costs shoot up

Allegations of opacity have surfaced as the legal expenses of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) exceeded Rs 37 lakh in 2024-25 — more than the combined total for the previous two years. This has also come despite the premier institution saying multiple times in court that its administrative decisions cannot stand legal scrutiny.

From reinstating a terminated faculty member to matters related to promotion and gratuity claims it denied earlier, JNU authorities have backtracked, prompting allegations of harassment by teachers.

No transparency, say teachers

Teachers also told The Federal that there was no transparency regarding the legal expenses or approval sought for the same from the Executive Council (EC). The JNU has a list of 15 empanelled legal counsels, led by Supreme Court Advocate Monika Arora — who is also the standing counsel for the Government of India in the Delhi High Court and national convenor of the Group of Intellectuals and Academicians (GIA) — a right-wing body.

Also read: INDIA bloc leaders blast Bihar SIR at JNU: 'Indian democracy at stake'

Members of the JNU Teachers’ Association (JNUTA) and the EC told The Federal there was no clarity on whether the university was spending money on consulting with lawyers outside the list.

As per the JNU’s annual account, the university spent around Rs 19.78 lakh on legal expenses in 2022-23, and Rs 14.06 lakh in 2023-24. In 2024-25, though, it ballooned to Rs 37.36 lakh.

Rohan Choudhari case

However, even as the JNU continues to spend lakhs on legal expenditures in the court on several matters, the university has found itself without a leg to stand on. In August, the university, in an unprecedented move, terminated Rohan Choudhari — an assistant professor at its Centre for Political Studies — for “unauthorised absence” during probation. Despite letters and protests by the JNUTA, the vice-chancellor did not relent, forcing Choudhari to approach the Delhi High Court earlier in September. The episode threw the campus into a tizzy.

Also read: 'CBI can't be faulted': Delhi court closes JNU student Najeeb Ahmed missing case

Interestingly, in its order on September 3, the high court said: “Learned Senior Standing Counsel for JNU, submits upon instructions, that the petitioner may avail of the remedy provided under Section 11(2) of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Act, 1966, which would be considered by the Court of the University. He further submits that the impugned order will be kept in abeyance until the Court considers the petitioner’s case.”

The university, thereafter, agreed on its own to keep the termination order in abeyance. However, sources said Rohan’s salary was allegedly not released, and the order was not given effect to, prompting him to go back to the high court. During the September 19 order, too, the JNU conceded.

Also read: JNUSU poll results: Decoding Left alliance's win and ABVP's gain

“Mr. Vasant Rajasekaran, learned Standing Counsel for Jawaharlal Nehru University [“JNU”], instructed by the Vice Chancellor, who is voluntarily present in Court, states that the order does not require any clarification. JNU itself understands that, by virtue of order dated 02.09.2025, the petitioner is entitled to discharge his responsibilities as Assistant Professor, Centre for Political Studies, JNU, with full pay allowances and attendant benefits,” the order by Justice Prateek Jalan stated.

“He further states that the petitioner’s salary for August 2025 has already been released, although some delay was occasioned by the processing of the matter after the order dated 2.09.2025 was passed. He further states his monthly salary will continue to be released regularly until a final decision is taken…,” it added.

Teachers move court over eligibility date

In a matter relating to faculty promotions on the fixing of the date of eligibility, the court record shows the university candidly admitted that the petitioner was entitled to relief under earlier judgments as well as UGC (University Grants Commission) regulations. Two JNU teachers — Chirashree Dasgupta and P Puneeth — went to the court, saying they had lost one year and nearly six years in seniority, respectively, after the JNU incorrectly fixed their date of eligibility.

Also read: DUSU polls: ABVP secures three of four posts; NSUI wins one

“We waited for some time, we requested the Executive Council elected members to raise our case that this is outrightly illegal, that you cannot do this because the UGC rules itself says that the date of the selection committee cannot do anything about the date of eligibility. They can reject the promotion, but they cannot do anything about the date… But the VC said it is her discretion. So, then we moved court. And it was one of the shortest cases in JNU’s history,” Dasgupta told The Federal.

In an order by Justice Jyoti Singh of the Delhi HC dated September 20, 2024, the JNU’s counsel “candidly admitted” that the petitioners were covered by binding judgments, and the university intended to grant the benefit, and merely sought eight to twelve weeks to modify the impugned order and provide consequential benefits to the petitioner.

Issue over pensionary benefits, gratuity

In another case from May this year, four JNU teachers — who were “chargesheeted” in 2018 for a one-day strike — went to the court after they were denied pensionary benefits, gratuity, and leave encashment.

Also read: Delhi HC slams DUSU candidates over the use of luxury cars in poll campaign

Once again, in an order dated May 20, the JNU said “leave encashment dues have already been released to the petitioners”, the “provisional pension benefits have been released during the pendency of the writ petitions” and that “the gratuity dues of all the petitioners will be released within a period of four weeks from today” — which the university was told to release with six per cent interest.

“I have said this before, there is nothing more to this than the fact that the JNU administration, like the rest of the governance currently, knows that the process is the punishment. They want to make you wait, they want to make you go to court and pay lawyers’ fees, and finally, they lose because they don’t have a legal leg to stand on,” said Professor (Retd) Janaki Nair, one of the petitioners in the matter.

Also read: Delhi University: Rs 1-lakh bond for student polls sparks protests

Teachers said scarce university funds were being drained to defend unsustainable decisions, which were also “illegal and arbitrary”.

'University committing illegalities'

“The question is, why are matters ultimately going to court? It’s happening because the university is committing illegalities with the objective of harassing people, particularly teachers. Even when there is no ground, if you compel someone to go to court, there is an expenditure involved on their part. For university, there is no one bearing the expenditure personally, but anyone going to court has to spend money,” said JNUTA president Surajit Mazumdar.

Also read: As Indian universities crush dissent, admins gain iron grip on teaching staff

“Most often, they do not have a case. Even when they do try to argue, they get adverse orders from the court. So, this is the use of process as a punishment,” he said.

Mazumdar also said that while the accounts were brought to the EC, the university had not provided any explanation as to why the legal costs had spiked to such an extent.

JNU Vice-Chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit did not respond to calls or texts from The Federal.