The Indian Institute of Management Nagpur witnessed a large-scale student protest after around 40 first-year MBA students were barred from appearing in their Term-3 mid-term examinations for attending an overnight farewell party off campus without prior permission.
The disciplinary action, which also included temporary suspension orders and removal from positions of responsibility, prompted nearly 300 students to boycott exams in solidarity. The administration cited “unauthorised absence” and breach of hostel rules, while students described the punishment as disproportionate and alleged inconsistent enforcement, including claims of gender bias in parental communication.
Following days of unrest, the institute revoked the exam ban and suspensions, assuring that make-up examinations would be conducted and that no student would suffer academic loss. Director Bhimaraya Metri returned to campus as discussions to resolve the matter continued.
Silent Protest And Exam Boycott Over Disciplinary Action
The controversy began on the night of February 21, when approximately 75 to 80 first- and second-year MBA students left campus to attend a farewell gathering organised by student clubs at a rented villa in Nagpur. According to students, the event was meant to bid goodbye to senior batchmates and included a poolside celebration. While some clubs reportedly sought informal permission, others did not, leading to confusion about authorisation. The students returned to campus the following morning but were allegedly stopped at the gate and questioned by officials about their overnight absence.
Late on February 23, first-year students received an official email stating that around 40 of them would be barred from appearing in their mid-term examinations scheduled for February 24 and 25. The email cited “unauthorised absence” from campus after the revised 10 pm curfew deadline and noted discrepancies in the outing register, where some students had reportedly mentioned they were going home but returned the next morning.
In addition to being barred from exams, the affected students were informed of their suspension from the MBA programme and removal from positions of responsibility, pending submission of signed undertakings and no-objection letters from their parents.
The action triggered swift backlash. Nearly 300 first-year students, joined by some from the second-year batch, gathered outside the director’s office and launched a silent protest. Many chose to boycott the mid-term examinations in solidarity, arguing that preventing students from sitting exams was an excessive response to a hostel rule violation.
“If rules were broken, a warning or fine could have been imposed. But stopping us from writing exams puts our academic future at risk,” one protesting student reportedly said. The protests remained peaceful, with students demanding revocation of the suspension and clarity on institutional policies.
Policy Ambiguity, Gender Allegations And Administrative Response
At the heart of the dispute lies the institute’s late-night entry policy. Students pointed out that the curfew had recently been revised from midnight to 10 pm, but the specific consequences for violations were not clearly communicated. While they acknowledged that some among them may have breached hostel norms, they argued that academic penalties particularly suspension and exam disqualification were disproportionate.
Further intensifying the unrest were allegations of discriminatory conduct. Some students claimed that the parents of female students were contacted and informed that their daughters had gone out with male classmates, whereas parents of male students were not similarly contacted. Students described the tone and selective communication as inappropriate and inconsistent with principles of equality. They maintained that if parental notification was deemed necessary, it should have been implemented uniformly and sensitively.
The institute, however, defended its decision. A senior official told The Times of India that disciplinary action was initiated strictly in line with existing regulations and was aimed at ensuring student safety and accountability. The official clarified that the measures were “not moral policing” but enforcement of institutional rules, especially given that students had remained outside campus overnight without prior permission. The administration also emphasised that such steps are sometimes necessary to maintain order and responsibility within residential academic environments.
As protests continued and tensions escalated, Director Bhimaraya Metri, who was reportedly out of Nagpur when the situation unfolded, returned to campus to address the issue. After internal deliberations and dialogue with student representatives, the administration decided to revoke the exam ban and suspension orders.
The institute announced that make-up examinations would be conducted for those who had missed their papers and assured students that there would be no academic loss as a result of the protest or disciplinary action. However, the 10 pm curfew policy remains unchanged, and the administration has reiterated the importance of seeking prior permission for late-night outings.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
This episode at IIM Nagpur reflects a broader challenge faced by many educational institutions: balancing discipline with dialogue, and authority with empathy. Residential campuses must ensure safety and accountability, yet disciplinary actions particularly those affecting academic progression must be proportionate, transparent and clearly communicated. When policies are ambiguous or enforcement appears inconsistent, trust between students and administration can erode quickly.
