JNU STUDENTS CHALLENGE V-C’S ACCOUNT OF HUNGER STRIKE, ALLEGE DENIAL OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE

October 19, 2026

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 19: The Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) has challenged the vice-chancellor’s account of a hunger strike on campus, alleging that protesting students were denied adequate medical assistance despite their deteriorating health.

The students’ response follows remarks by JNU vice-chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit concerning the hunger strike and the administration’s handling of the protest. The union disputed the university administration’s version of events and raised questions about the treatment of students who continued their protest despite the physical risks associated with prolonged fasting.

The dispute has intensified tensions between the students’ union and the university administration, with the opposing accounts highlighting a wider disagreement over the handling of campus protests and the responsibilities of university authorities towards students participating in them.

JNUSU maintained that medical care was a central concern during the hunger strike and alleged that the administration failed to provide the necessary assistance to the protesters. The allegations have placed the university’s response to the students’ health needs at the centre of the controversy.

Hunger strikes have historically been used by student organisations as a form of non-violent protest to press demands against institutional authorities. However, prolonged fasting can pose serious health risks, making timely medical assessment and appropriate care particularly important.

The confrontation at JNU has renewed attention on relations between the elected students’ union and the university administration. The union’s allegations and the vice-chancellor’s account remain competing versions of the episode, with the precise circumstances surrounding the provision of medical assistance requiring clarification.

The controversy also raises broader questions about how universities should manage student dissent while safeguarding the health and well-being of those involved in protests. As the disagreement continues, the focus remains on the students’ allegations, the administration’s response and the need for a clear account of how the hunger strike was handled.