Controversy over police deployment at SRFTI: students threaten to approach Calcutta High Court

The controversy over the deployment of police personnel inside the campus of the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI) shows no signs of abating. The students' union has written to Vice-Chancellor Santosh Ajmera, raising concerns over the presence of police personnel on campus, alleged restrictions on invited guests entering the premises and claims of police surveillance.

In its letter, the union has demanded the withdrawal of police personnel from the campus, the disclosure of documents explaining the reasons for and authorisation of their deployment, and the preservation of all relevant evidence, including CCTV footage. It has given the Vice-Chancellor 48 hours to address these demands and provide a written response. The union has warned that it will approach the Calcutta High Court and the National Human Rights Commission and West Bengal Human Rights Commission if no action is taken within the stipulated period.

According to the students' union, an event was organised on campus on 27 October to mark one month since the incident of 27 September. Prominent filmmakers had been invited to attend, but they were allegedly denied entry. The union claims that neither the students nor the invited guests received any written order or clear explanation for the restrictions.

At the same time, delivery workers bringing food and other supplies for institute staff were reportedly allowed to enter. As a result, the students and invited guests were forced to conduct the event on opposite sides of the campus entrance.

In its letter, the union further alleges that police personnel entered the campus at around midnight that day, reportedly on the Vice-Chancellor's instructions or with his permission. According to the students, the Vice-Chancellor's personal security was cited as the reason for the deployment, although they maintain that they had never threatened his safety and were merely holding a peaceful protest against the administration's actions.

The students claim that even after the Vice-Chancellor left the administrative building and moved to the guest house, the police personnel remained on campus. They further allege that the number of personnel subsequently increased.

The students allege that the police presence is no longer confined to the administrative building or the area around the guest house. Some personnel have reportedly been seen moving around departmental buildings and different parts of the hostels. The union has also alleged that some officers have refused to disclose their identities.

The lack of clear information about when police personnel enter and leave the campus, their identities, the purpose of their deployment and the areas in which they are authorised to operate has raised questions about transparency and accountability, the union says.

According to the students, an indefinite police presence on the pretext of ensuring campus security could affect their normal academic life and personal space.

The controversy stems from clashes on campus in late September and early October. Students have expressed concerns about security since the incidents of violence reported on 27 September and 4 October.

The students allege that tensions escalated on 4 October during a procession by members of the Banga Hindu Jagaran Manch, an organisation said to be close to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Allegations were also made that bottles and bricks were thrown during the incident.

Following the clashes, students launched a protest demanding enhanced campus security and accountability for the violence. An indefinite sit-in outside the Vice-Chancellor's office has been under way since 12 October. On 16 October, the administration reportedly directed students to vacate the hostels, but the protesters refused to comply.

The students' torchlight procession on 27 October has also become a point of contention, with the administration and the union offering differing accounts of the incident.

SRFTI authorities claim that around 50 students took out the procession without prior permission or notification. According to an institute official, the procession passed through several parts of the campus, including residential areas near the guest house.

The official claimed that the students carrying torches and raising slogans created an atmosphere of fear and anxiety on campus for nearly an hour. The official also argued that the incident could not be described as a peaceful protest and that students could not take the law into their own hands.

The students' union, however, maintains that the procession ended at around 6.30 pm. It alleges that 10 to 15 police personnel entered the campus at around 11.30 pm and proceeded towards the Vice-Chancellor's guest house.

The students have questioned why the police were deployed nearly five hours after the procession had ended, if the procession itself was responsible for the situation. They have demanded the disclosure of the actual reasons for the deployment and the documents authorising it.

A four-member student delegation had sought a meeting with the Vice-Chancellor to discuss the reasons for the police deployment. However, the union alleges that he refused to meet them.

The students further claim that most of the police personnel deployed on campus were not wearing visibly identifiable identity cards. Although the administration reportedly stated that the police were stationed in front of the administrative building and the guest house, the union alleges that personnel have been moving around other parts of the campus, sitting near the protest site and recording videos of students, particularly women students.

The union has also claimed that some police personnel are present on campus in plain clothes. It has further alleged that a police van has been stationed in front of the protest site around the clock.

The students also allege that, during Wednesday's rainfall, they were prevented from sitting or standing beneath the administrative building when they sought shelter there. They claim that police personnel have also obstructed them from entering the building to submit official letters or carry out legitimate institutional work.

According to the students, the police deployment in the name of security is interfering with the normal functioning of the campus and restricting their freedom of movement.

Meanwhile, more than 30 faculty members and staff have reportedly signed a statement opposing the police deployment. They said that some faculty members had urged the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar to withdraw the police personnel, but the issue remained unresolved.

The students' union has also challenged the claim that the Vice-Chancellor felt threatened by the torchlight procession. According to the students, the area around the guest house had been kept clear during the procession. They have said they are prepared to produce photographs and videos of the area to support their claim.

The union has questioned why the administration has not clarified whether the police deployment is necessary, how long it will continue and the precise limits of the areas in which the personnel are authorised to operate, despite citing the Vice-Chancellor's security as the reason.

The students' union has also questioned the legal basis for the police deployment. Referring to Sections 168 to 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the union argues that the exercise of preventive police powers is subject to specific legal requirements.

According to the union, such powers may be exercised only when there is information or knowledge of a plan to commit a cognisable offence and the relevant information is properly recorded. The students allege that the institute has not disclosed any such information or provided reasons that would justify the deployment.

The union has also invoked Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 21 of the Constitution.

It argues that denying entry to invited guests while allowing delivery workers onto the campus amounts to discriminatory treatment. The students maintain that the Constitution protects their rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression, while also recognising the importance of privacy and dignity in residential spaces such as hostels.

The alleged entry and movement of police personnel inside hostels without clearly stated reasons, identifiable officers or defined responsibilities have raised further concerns about these rights, the union says.

Against this backdrop, the students' union has placed an eight-point set of demands before the Vice-Chancellor.

It has called for the withdrawal of any permission or request for police deployment inside the campus, with written intimation to the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata.

The union has also demanded copies of all communications exchanged between the institute and the police since 27 October, along with details of the purpose of the deployment, the number of personnel involved, their designated areas of operation, the duration of the deployment and the identity of the official who authorised the decision.

It has further sought an explanation identifying who ordered the restriction on invited guests entering the campus and the rules under which the decision was taken.

The students have also demanded that, if invited guests are denied entry in the future, the reasons must be communicated through a written order, with a copy provided to the students' union in advance.

They have sought written assurances that the administration will not seek police assistance to disperse or restrict peaceful gatherings on campus and that no student will face disciplinary action for participating in the protest.

Another demand is the maintenance of a gate register recording the entry and exit times, names, ranks and identification numbers of all police personnel entering or leaving the campus.

Beyond written explanations, the union has called for the preservation of all relevant documents and evidence. These include CCTV footage from the main entrance, campus boundaries and administrative building; visitor and gate registers; records of delivery workers entering the premises; letters, emails and other electronic communications exchanged between the police and the institute; internal instructions; file notes; meeting minutes; and audio-visual recordings relating to the events of 27 and 28 October.

The letter warns that any destruction or alteration of these documents, or deletion of existing records, will be raised before the court.

The students' union has clarified that it does not oppose security arrangements at the main entrance and along the campus boundaries. It maintains that the students themselves had demanded enhanced security following the alleged attack by outsiders on 4 October.

Their objection, the union says, is to the presence of police personnel inside the campus without a clearly defined purpose, strength, operational area or time limit, and without adequate disclosure of the identities of the officers in charge.

According to the protesters, the central issue is how campus security can be ensured while protecting students' rights to peaceful protest, freedom of expression and privacy, as well as maintaining a normal academic environment.

The letter states that if the demands for police withdrawal, disclosure of documents and written assurances are not met within the stipulated 48 hours, the union will approach the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The students say they will seek judicial scrutiny of the legal basis for the police deployment, directions for the withdrawal of personnel, disclosure and preservation of relevant documents, protection of the right to peaceful assembly, and an independent inquiry into the incident of 27 September and the administration's handling of the subsequent protests.

The union has also announced plans to approach the National Human Rights Commission and the West Bengal Human Rights Commission. It has decided to raise the matter with the institute's chairman and the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as well.

The controversy surrounding SRFTI continues to escalate. Students allege that the administration has failed to give adequate attention to their demands despite allegations of attacks on students and reports that several students sustained serious injuries.

Instead, the deployment of police personnel inside the campus has triggered a fresh dispute. On Thursday afternoon, additional police personnel were reportedly deployed at SRFTI. The students estimate that around 40 police personnel were present on campus.

Whether the students will ultimately be forced to approach the court remains to be seen.