Presidency University’s expulsion of alumna Olivia Banerjee, as described by her in an interview with The Telegraph, has turned a dispute over graffiti and political expression into a wider question about how public universities regulate dissent, student activism and post-studentship academic access. Banerjee says she wrote slogans on an Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad poster during an October event on campus and was later expelled, even though she was no longer a student. The university has cited alleged defacement of a portrait of Swami Vivekananda and provocative language against an organisation, according to the account.
The dispute is not only about the words written on a banner. It also raises questions about who can be subjected to university discipline, how committees establish facts, what procedural safeguards are available to students and alumni, and whether academic institutions can maintain space for political disagreement without allowing intimidation, communal speech or threats to become part of campus life.
The material available for this account comes from Banerjee’s interview. The university’s response to her allegations, including her claims about the disciplinary process, has not been provided. The facts of the case therefore need to be separated from the competing interpretations surrounding it. Banerjee acknowledges writing “Dissent”, “rapists”, “casteists”, an expletive directed at the RSS and “throw garbage here” on an ABVP poster. She says the writing was intended as political protest and not as an attack on the university or its administration.
According to Banerjee, an ABVP recruitment drive was taking place near the arts faculty library, where the poster carried an image of Swami Vivekananda. She says another student was present but did not write on the banner. The two were subsequently called before a disciplinary committee. Banerjee says the other student apologised, while she declined to do so because she believed that writing the slogans was an act of dissent rather than misconduct requiring an apology.
The distinction matters because the university’s alleged grounds, as described in the interview, combine two different questions: damage to or defacement of a representation of a national figure, and the use of provocative language against an organisation. A disciplinary response may treat both as one act, but the institutional reasoning would need to establish what precisely happened, who was responsible for each action and which university rule applied. Banerjee says the committee did not show her CCTV footage and that both disciplinary letters cited the same grounds.
The sequence described by Banerjee places the dispute within an already tense campus environment. She refers to an earlier general body meeting on December 25, 2025, at which a student associated with ABVP allegedly made communal remarks. She says an inquiry committee was formed after complaints, but submitted its report after five months and issued only a warning. These claims are part of Banerjee’s account and have not been independently established in the supplied material.
She also refers to posters calling for the vandalism of a statue of Derozio, rape threats circulated in WhatsApp groups and conflicts at other campuses, including Jadavpur University and the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute. Banerjee says these incidents contributed to the formation of a collective called “Rerouting the Field”, involving students, alumni and others who wanted to connect academic work with wider society.
That collective later organised an event to mark Dalit History Month on July 8 and 9, followed by a solidarity event involving art and music on October 13. Banerjee says the university had granted permission for the latter event. She describes the event as a space where participants could express dissent through songs, graffiti and posters. She also refers to a mural of Rohith Vemula and Chuni Kotal on the campus, part of which she says was whitewashed during a National Assessment and Accreditation Council visit.
These details are significant because they show how the disciplinary dispute emerged from a broader political culture rather than from an isolated act of writing. Banerjee presents the slogan-writing as a response to what she describes as communal remarks, alleged threats and the growing presence of organised political activity on campus. The university’s stated position, as conveyed in the interview, focuses on the poster, the portrait and the language used. The gap between these two accounts is the central institutional problem: one frames the incident as political protest, while the other frames it as defacement and provocative conduct.
The process followed by the university is equally important. Banerjee says a five-member committee was formed during the Durga Puja holidays and that it was composed mostly of science faculty members, with no student representatives. She also alleges that one member had political connections. The allegation is not independently verified in the supplied material, but it points to a basic governance question: disciplinary bodies must be trusted not only to reach a decision but also to appear impartial to those appearing before them.
Banerjee says she and the other student were informed of the disciplinary committee meeting by email at 7.40pm on the previous evening. She describes the notice as threatening because it warned that an ex parte decision would be taken if they did not attend. She says the students submitted written statements but were questioned about their choice of words, and that the committee did not show them the CCTV footage she expected might clarify the incident.
The other student’s case, as described by Banerjee, further illustrates the difficulty of treating an apology as a straightforward resolution. Banerjee says the student admitted a lapse of judgement and apologised, but was still expelled. According to Banerjee, the apology was treated as an admission of guilt rather than as a mitigating statement. Without the university’s order or its response, it is not possible to assess how the committee interpreted the apology or what separate role the student was found to have played.
The alumna’s status creates another unresolved question. Banerjee says she had completed her studies and does not understand how she could be expelled. She is concerned about collecting her results and recommendation letters, which she needs to pursue a PhD, and says she has been barred from pursuing doctoral studies at Presidency University. She also refers to a phrase in the order concerning “post-studentship academic activities”, but says she does not fully understand its implications.
This is where the case moves beyond campus protest. Universities control access to examinations, records, recommendations, campus facilities and academic progression. If an institution extends disciplinary authority beyond active enrolment, the scope and limits of that authority become consequential. The supplied account does not establish the legal or regulatory basis of the order, nor does it provide the text of the university’s rules. It does, however, show why the wording of the order matters to the person affected and why a disciplinary decision can influence a former student’s future academic opportunities.
Banerjee says she and the other student have written to the Dean of Students and the disciplinary committee seeking clarification and revocation of the orders. She says they have not received responses and that vacation prevented them from approaching the court immediately. These are also claims from the interview, and the university’s position on the correspondence is not available in the supplied report.
The episode raises a broader governance tension for universities. Campuses are expected to protect students from threats, communal abuse and harassment, while also preserving the ability to criticise organisations, ideologies and public figures. Those responsibilities are not automatically contradictory. They become difficult when protest involves offensive language, when political organisations accuse protesters of attacking cultural icons, or when threats and counter-threats circulate beyond formal campus forums.
The institutional response must therefore answer more than whether a slogan was offensive. It must establish what rule was breached, what evidence was considered, whether each person’s role was distinguished, why the penalty was proportionate and whether the individuals had a meaningful opportunity to respond. In the case described by Banerjee, these questions remain open because the university’s disciplinary orders and official explanation are not included in the available material.
The case also highlights the vulnerability of campus politics when informal networks replace transparent procedures. Banerjee says students and faculty members had previously taken public positions on incidents at other universities but did not contact her or the other student after this dispute. She interprets the silence as evidence that the university did not want their version to reach the media. That interpretation cannot be independently confirmed here, but it reflects the distrust that follows when institutions communicate decisions without making the reasoning accessible to those affected.
What the available account confirms is limited but important: Banerjee accepts that she wrote slogans on an ABVP poster; she disputes that the act justified disciplinary action; she says the university expelled her and another student; and she is challenging the process and the consequences. What remains uncertain is the precise wording of the disciplinary orders, the university’s rules governing alumni, the committee’s evidence, the other student’s independently established role and the university’s response to the allegations.
The next stage of the dispute will depend on whether those documents and responses become available. Until then, the Presidency University case should be understood not simply as a clash between a student collective and a political organisation, but as a test of how an academic institution defines dissent, applies disciplinary authority and preserves procedural legitimacy when campus politics becomes contested.
