The ongoing confrontation between students and the administration of the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI) in Kolkata took a fresh turn on Friday, with the authorities announcing the expulsion of six students over allegations of vandalism, harassment of senior officials and misconduct on campus.

The disciplinary action has further intensified the agitation, which entered its 18th day on Friday, with students continuing their boycott of classes since September 28. Rejecting the allegations as baseless, the Students’ Union has threatened to challenge the expulsion notices in court and continue its protest until its demands are addressed.

The standoff, which began over concerns about campus security following alleged incidents of violence involving an RSS-linked organisation, has now widened into a dispute over administrative accountability, surveillance measures and disciplinary action against protesting students.

A senior SRFTI official confirmed on Friday that disciplinary action had been initiated against six students accused of vandalising the Director’s office, harassing Director Santosh Ajmera and other staff members, and writing objectionable remarks on campus walls.

According to the official, the decision was taken by the deans and heads of various departments, including Cinematography, Editing and Film Production, following a series of incidents that allegedly disrupted the institute’s academic and administrative functioning.

The official accused a section of students of attempting to politicise the agitation for their own interests, while maintaining that the administration had no intention of jeopardising their academic careers.

With the Puja holidays beginning on Saturday, the authorities are expected to review the situation before deciding on the resumption of regular classes, possibly within a week.

However, Students’ Union spokesperson Sudip Chakraborty disputed the administration’s version, claiming that five students had received expulsion notices and that the action was unjustified.

“The allegations against the students are baseless,” the union maintained, adding that those served with notices were preparing to seek legal remedies.

The discrepancy between the administration’s figure of six students and the union’s claim of five notices remained unresolved.

CCTV installation sparks fresh confrontation

The immediate trigger for the latest confrontation was the administration’s decision to install CCTV cameras on the first floor of the administrative building, allegedly without informing the Students’ Union.

On Thursday, the 17th day of the agitation, students began a sit-in on the floor after discovering that installation work had commenced.

The union alleged that the move violated an agreement reached with the administration in 2024 following a 16-day student protest.

Under that agreement, according to the students, the union was to be consulted before the locations of CCTV cameras were finalised.

The protesters further claimed that during a meeting with the institute’s Vice-Chancellor on September 30, the administration had assured them that at least three days’ prior notice would be given before any new cameras were installed.

The students alleged that the authorities disregarded both commitments.

They maintained that Thursday’s sit-in was peaceful and intended to hold the administration accountable for failing to honour its assurances.

Administration alleges attack on senior official

The CCTV dispute followed allegations of vandalism at the office of the institute’s senior administrative authority on Wednesday night.

According to the administration, windowpanes were smashed, furniture was damaged and stones were found inside the premises. The authorities also alleged that air-conditioning equipment and water supply pipes had been damaged.

The students claimed that the Vice-Chancellor subsequently justified the installation of CCTV cameras as a security measure following the incident.

On Thursday, the administration convened a meeting of faculty members and non-teaching staff to condemn the alleged vandalism.

The authorities claimed that following the meeting, a group of protesting students surrounded the Vice-Chancellor, raised slogans and subjected him to harassment. They further alleged that one student physically assaulted the official.

The administration cited these incidents as grounds for disciplinary proceedings, maintaining that such conduct threatened the normal functioning of the institution and undermined the academic environment.

Students deny violence, accuse authorities of intimidation

The Students’ Union categorically rejected the allegations of vandalism, assault and harassment.

It maintained that the agitation had remained peaceful throughout, consisting of sit-ins, marches, slogan-shouting, demonstrations and protest artwork.

The union accused the administration of attempting to discredit the movement by linking protesting students to incidents of violence without evidence.

The students also alleged that the Vice-Chancellor had summoned police personnel to the campus to intimidate demonstrators.

According to the union, a General Diary was lodged at a police station naming the Students’ Union president and the general secretary of the film department.

The protesters described the police involvement and disciplinary proceedings as attempts to suppress their demands rather than resolve the underlying dispute.

The administration, however, maintained that allegations of vandalism and harassment could not be ignored merely because a student movement was underway.

September 27 clash at root of campus unrest

The present agitation traces its origins to September 27, when a confrontation allegedly broke out between SRFTI students and members of the Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat, an organisation reportedly associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), during an event on campus.

The Students’ Union alleged that several students sustained injuries in the incident and accused the administration of failing to ensure their safety.

A further episode of tension was reported near the institute’s main gate on October 4, deepening concerns among students about security arrangements.

The union alleged that the authorities had neither taken adequate action against those responsible for the incidents nor provided sufficient assurances against further violence.

The agitation subsequently expanded into a sustained boycott of classes, with students demanding accountability from the administration and an independent investigation into the incidents.

The institute’s authorities, on the other hand, alleged that the prolonged agitation had severely disrupted academic activities and that some protesters were preventing other students from attending classes.

Union seeks chairman’s intervention, demands resignation

As the impasse deepened, the Students’ Union approached SRFTI chairman Suresh Goel, seeking his intervention to resolve the dispute.

In its communication, the union demanded the resignation of the institute’s senior administrative head, withdrawal of the disciplinary notices, adequate security arrangements for students and an impartial investigation into the alleged incidents of campus violence.

The union warned that the agitation would continue unless the administration addressed its grievances through meaningful discussions.

The authorities, meanwhile, have indicated that restoring normal academic activities remains a priority, even as they insist that alleged acts of vandalism and intimidation warrant disciplinary action.

Academic deadlock deepens ahead of Puja break

With the Puja vacation beginning on Saturday, the institute faces uncertainty over when normal classes can resume.

What began as a protest over student safety has evolved into a wider confrontation involving allegations of political interference, violations of administrative assurances, campus surveillance and the use of disciplinary powers against student protesters.

While the administration maintains that it is acting to protect institutional discipline and restore academic normalcy, the Students’ Union insists that the authorities are attempting to silence legitimate grievances through punitive measures.

The threatened legal challenge to the expulsion notices could now take the dispute beyond the campus, adding a judicial dimension to an agitation that has already disrupted academic activities for nearly three weeks.

For the moment, neither side appears willing to retreat, leaving one of Kolkata’s premier film institutes caught in an increasingly bitter standoff between its students and administration.
Editorial verification note: The supplied account alternates between Director and Vice-Chancellor when referring to the senior official and the allegedly vandalised office. SRFTI’s official designation and the identity of the official involved should be verified before publication. The conflicting figures of six expelled students and five notices received also require confirmation. The report above attributes disputed allegations to the respective parties rather than presenting them as established facts.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store – https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share