Army Institute of Law Protests: Students register protest over management’s response to demands

Even as student protests at the Army Institute of Law, Mohali continue for the fourth day, the administration responded to the eight principal demands put forward by the student body on Friday evening.

Whereas the students had called for a more democratic set up when in comes to the appointment of student body representatives, the administration has asserted that there would be no elections, although an interim body of students may be nominated.

The student body has registered their disappointment over the administration’s response in a press release issued on Friday.

“The Chairman and the OIC walked out after agreeing to none of our original demands, out of which the prominent demands were either denied without explanation/discussion or made contingent on other factors. The same was crystallised in a document titled ‘Decision of the Management on Statement of Relief’ and signed by the Brigadier Officer in Charge of AIL and not the Chairman himself.”

The management’s decision followed a meeting with four student representatives on Friday. However, the student body has raised grievance that the management took the decision without granting the student body a fair chance to be heard. In this regard, the press release also states,

“They cited the reason behind their refusal to grant the students a patient hearing as being the students’ failure to disperse from the site of their dharna, which they mistakenly believe is something that the students promised them in the previous session, despite the claims of all the students to the contrary, as all their demands hadn’t been heard in the previous session.”

The management has declined to completely accede to most of the original demands made by the students.

Whereas the students had called for the revocation of the Army Institute of Law Code of Conduct, citing various arbitrary rules, the administration has responded by stating that the same would be reviewed in consultation with students and all parents. 

As regards the students’ demands for a say in faculty appointments, the management’s decision states, “Participation in selection of faculty not agreed. Feedback on existing faculty welcome.”

Student grievances concerning poor cafeteria/mess infrastructure and the pricing and quality of food and catering was responded to with the management intimating that the nominated student body would look after the same, and weekly feedback and checks would be carried out.

The students had also asked for equal representation on the Board of Inquiry when it comes to dealing with offences under the Code of Conduct. The management has responded by stating that one nominated student would be allowed to be part of the Board.

The request for withdrawing restrictions on the movement of both male and female students within campus has been refused. However, the management decision also states that the same would be reviewed after feedback from all parents.

The demand made for constituting a Board of Inquiry to conduct an impartial and democratic inquiry into the female warden’s conduct has also been refused. The management, however, adds that if a formal complaint is received, the same will be investigated and suitable action will be taken.

As regards the student grievance over the hike in annual fees, the administration has responded by stating,

 “It is management decision after due consideration, in consonance with rules on the subject.”