The All India Students’ Association (AISA) has declared its support for a September 5 march in New Delhi organised by the Committee for Judicial Probe (CJP), linking the demand to withdraw cases against students with a separate call for an independent judicial inquiry into the use of pellet-firing weapons in Jammu and Kashmir. The endorsement signals a continued effort by left-aligned student groups to keep both questions on the national agenda as Parliament reconvenes after the monsoon recess.
AISA president Neha Bora said the grievances that drove earlier rounds of student mobilisation remain unaddressed, particularly the pendency of criminal cases against students that the association says the government had committed to dropping. By aligning with the CJP’s call, AISA is attempting to merge two distinct campaigns into a single national-level demonstration in the capital.
What happened
AISA’s public statement extended organisational support to a march scheduled for September 5 in Delhi under the banner of the Committee for Judicial Probe. The march’s stated objectives include the unconditional withdrawal of first information reports filed against students in connection with earlier protests and an independent judicial investigation into the use of pellet guns in Kashmir.
Bora, in remarks carried by news outlets, framed AISA’s participation as part of the association’s longer record of opposing pellet-gun use and contesting what it characterises as the criminalisation of student activism. AISA has been among the more consistent student-organisation voices calling for accountability over pellet deployments, particularly after the widespread use of such weapons during the 201 Kashmir unrest.
The CJP itself is a civil society platform that has campaigned for an independent judicial inquiry into alleged excesses during counter-insurgency operations in Kashmir. Its decision to organise a march in Delhi coincides with the run-up to the autumn session of Parliament, when opposition parties and civil society groups typically attempt to place security- and rights-related issues on the legislative agenda.
The specifics of which FIRs are under scrutiny, the number of students currently facing charges, and the exact nature of the government’s prior withdrawal commitments have not been publicly itemised in the AISA announcement.
Why it matters
The convergence of the two demands is politically significant because it links a domestic question, the legal status of students arrested or charged in connection with campus and street protests, with a longer-running human rights question about the weapons used against civilians in Kashmir. For the government, both issues carry distinct legal and political risks.
The student-FIR question touches on the boundaries of lawful protest and the use of criminal procedure to manage dissent. Successive governments have faced criticism, including from national human rights bodies, for what opposition groups describe as the disproportionate use of sedition and unlawful-assembly provisions against students. The Supreme Court of India has, in multiple rulings, cautioned against the automatic arrest regime under Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has reiterated that the right to protest is a facet of the right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a).
The pellet-gun question, by contrast, sits within a more entrenched security framework. After the 2016 unrest, in which hundreds of civilians were injured by metal pellets, the use of such weapons drew sharp criticism from ophthalmologists, international human rights organisations, and the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission, which recommended a ban on their use against crowds. The government partially restricted the deployment of pellet guns, but no independent judicial inquiry was ordered, and the weapons have continued to be used in subsequent periods of unrest.
By linking the two issues, AISA and the CJP are attempting to argue that what they describe as the suppression of dissent operates through a common set of institutional mechanisms, whether on university campuses or in conflict zones. Whether that framing gains traction with broader civil society and opposition political parties will be one measure of the march’s political reach.
Background and context
Pellet-firing weapons, which fire a cloud of small metal pellets, were used extensively by security forces during the 201 Kashmir Valley unrest following the killing of militant commander Burhan Wani in July 2016. The resulting injuries, including a high number of cases involving severe ocular damage, drew international attention and prompted the State Human Rights Commission to call for a complete ban on their use against civilians. The Indian government did not order a blanket prohibition but introduced a phased retirement of pump-action pellet guns and stated that the weapons would be used only as a “last resort” under specified conditions.
Despite those stated restrictions, pellet injuries have continued to be documented in subsequent years, and no judicial commission has been constituted to examine the pattern of their use, the rules of engagement under which they were deployed, or the accountability mechanisms for instances of disproportionate harm. Human rights groups, including Amnesty International India and Human Rights Watch, have called for an independent investigation. The CJP’s campaign predates the AISA endorsement by several years and has previously organised public hearings, fact-finding reports, and signature campaigns on the question.
The question of FIRs against students has a separate but parallel trajectory. Beginning with the 2016 Jawaharlal Nehru University sedition case, and continuing through later episodes at Delhi University, the University of Hyderabad, and Jamia Millia Islamia, student organisations have alleged that criminal cases were filed as a form of retaliation for political activity. The National Human Rights Commission and the Delhi Minorities Commission have, in several instances, raised concerns about the manner in which cases were registered. Successive Union Home Ministry statements have asserted that law enforcement agencies act in accordance with the law and that cases are subject to judicial scrutiny.
AISA, the student wing of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation, has positioned itself as a vocal critic of both the National Education Policy and the use of legal instruments against student organisers. Its endorsement of the CJP’s march extends a relationship that has previously manifested in joint campaigns on issues including academic freedom, custodial violence, and the militarisation of campus administration.
What to watch next
Several developments will determine whether the September 5 march produces lasting political pressure or dissipates as a one-day event. The first is the composition of the coalition that actually turns out in Delhi: whether the CJP-AISA axis is joined by major national student federations, particularly those affiliated to opposition parties, and whether non-student civil society groups participate in significant numbers.
The second is the response of the Delhi Police, which is responsible for granting permissions and managing the security perimeter around the march route. Past demonstrations in central Delhi on politically sensitive subjects have been subject to Section 144 restrictions, route changes, and detentions of organisers. The manner in which the authorities handle the September 5 march will itself become a political question.
The third is whether the government engages with the substance of the demands. A formal statement responding to the call for withdrawal of FIRs, or any indication of movement on a judicial inquiry into pellet-gun use, would be a measurable outcome. The absence of any official response, by contrast, would suggest that the executive intends to treat the march as a routine protest event rather than a substantive policy challenge.
Finally, parliamentary proceedings during the autumn session will provide a parallel venue for the issues to be raised. Opposition parties have historically used parliamentary questions and zero-hour mentions to highlight both the status of student cases and the documentation of pellet injuries. The extent to which these questions are tabled, and the government’s replies, will offer a second indicator of political traction.
Conclusion
The AISA’s endorsement of the CJP’s September 5 Delhi march brings together two campaigns that have run on separate tracks for nearly a decade. Whether the alliance produces a sustained national-level pressure on the withdrawal of student FIRs and on accountability for pellet-gun use will depend less on the size of the turnout on a single day than on the willingness of political parties, parliamentary committees, and independent human rights bodies to treat the demands as standing items on the policy agenda. The march is, in this sense, a starting point rather than a verdict.
Sources
The Hindu – https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/aisa-backs-cjps-september-5-delhi-march-seeks-withdrawal-of-firs-probe-into-pellet-firing/article71391689.ece
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: The Hindu – National — source
