NEW DELHI: Simone Zoya Khan’s routine is set. She reaches Jawaharlal Nehru University’s administrative block at 9am, signs an attendance register, and picks up a booklet that outlines 2017 UGC regulations. After reading for a while, she sorts through files, traces documents and does other clerical work. Her work is done by 5pm.But Khan is no student or official at JNU. Nine years ago, as a PhD student at the university and vice-president of JNU Students’ Union (JNUSU), she had raised slogans outside the same administrative block, violating the very same UGC rules she now reads through every day.Currently a faculty member at a private university in Visakhapatnam, Khan is serving a 15-day “community service” punishment linked to the 2017-18 JNUSU protests over compulsory attendance, hostel fee hike issues, disciplinary actions and other policy changes.The service was ordered by Delhi high court in March last year while hearing an appeal filed by the former JNUSU office-bearers against a 2018 contempt conviction.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta accepted their unconditional apology and agreed to remit the punishment on the condition that they render two weeks of free service.They were to render this service in the administration department of an academic institution or at JNU, as directed by the university registrar.The court noted that while the students’ conduct during the protests could not be condoned, a contempt conviction could have “grave consequences” on their careers and become “life-long”. “Subject to the above condition being fulfilled, the punishment awarded shall stand remitted,” the March 27, 2025 order said.The service “is mostly paperwork, sorting files, researching, finding information as asked for. They have to mark attendance every day and complete the full office hours”, a person familiar with the matter said.There was no response from JNU on this.Khan was vice-president of the 2017-18 JNUSU panel. The union at the time was headed by Geeta Kumari of AISA, while Duggirala Srikrishna of SFI served as general secretary and Shubhanshu Singh of AISA as joint secretary. According to people familiar with the matter, the other office-bearers have already completed similar 15-day community service terms at the university administration block over the past several months.Geeta Kumari, now a faculty member in another state, served her punishment in Dec. The remaining office-bearers completed their terms around Oct. TOI reached out to Geeta Kumari and Simone Zoya Khan for comment, but they declined to speak on the matter.The former JNUSU office-bearers had all left the university around 2023 and are now employed in different capacities. The punishment meant a break from their professional duties and returning to Delhi nearly a decade after their protest.“They had to coordinate leave from their current workplaces, arrange their stay in Delhi and report daily for the duty,” said a source. Interestingly, among the issues these student leaders protested against at JNU during the prolonged phase of agitation in 2017-18 was compulsory attendance rules and alleged irregularities in admission policies.The demonstrations included marches, cultural resistance programmes, lectures, street plays and gatherings outside the administrative block. However, JNU had approached the Delhi high court, which on Aug 9, 2017 barred protests and demonstrations within a 100m radius of the administrative building to ensure free movement of officials and functioning of offices.In July 2018, the court held Geeta Kumari and then JNUSU office-bearers guilty of contempt for violating the order as protests continued near the restricted zone. Justice V Kameswar Rao imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 each on the student leaders while refraining from stricter punishment considering their status as students.The former student leaders later challenged the 2018 contempt conviction before a division bench of the high court. In affidavits submitted before the court, all four office-bearers tendered unconditional apology and said they had “no intention” to violate the court’s directions.In its March 2025 order, the division bench observed that while protests disrupting administration and teaching could not be accepted, the students had since “moved on in life”, completed their education and were now employed. Taking an “empathetic view”, the court agreed to remit the punishment subject to completion of community service.
