# An SC judge's letters to CJI, tribal student protest, and Delhi gangrape case

An episode of [3 Things](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1406730235), 2 Sep 2026, 32 min.

Audio: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/74788761/3_things_2026_september_2_v2.mp3

First, we speak to The Indian Express’ National Legal Affairs Editor Apurva Vishwanath about the unusual complaint against Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice S P Sharma, the allegations of administrative misconduct, and what the controversy reveals about the informal functioning of the collegium system. Next, we speak to The Indian Express’ Ankita Deshkar about the 13-day protest by tribal students in Maharashtra, the hostel rules that prompted the agitation—including an age cap and allegations involving pregnancy tests—and the demands that remain unresolved. (16:40) And in the end, we look at the alleged gangrape of a 17-year-old girl aboard a Delhi sleeper bus, how the vehicle continued operating despite 11 traffic challans and apparent safety violations, and whether post-Nirbhaya requirements concerning CCTV cameras, panic buttons and GPS tracking are being enforced. (29:40) Hosted by Ichha Sharma Produced and written by Shashank Bhargava and Ichha Sharma Edited and mixed by Suresh Pawar

## Transcript

[0:00] Speaker 1: In today's episode, we look at Maharashtra where a 13-day
[0:04] Speaker 1: protest by tribal students forced the government to roll back
[0:08] Speaker 1: parts of its new hostel rules. We also take a
[0:11] Speaker 1: look at Delhi where the alleged gang rape of a
[0:14] Speaker 1: 17-year-old girl on a sleeper bus has raised serious questions
[0:18] Speaker 1: about whether post-Nirbhaya safety rules are actually being enforced. But
[0:23] Speaker 1: we begin today by talking about a controversy brewing inside
[0:27] Speaker 1: India's judicial system. Hi, I'm Itchha Sharma and you're listening
[0:34] Speaker 1: to 3 Things, the Indian Express news show. Last week,
[0:43] Speaker 1: we came to know about a development that almost never
[0:46] Speaker 1: becomes public. A judge complaining about a colleague to the
[0:51] Speaker 1: Chief Justice of India. We learned that Supreme Court Judge
[0:54] Speaker 1: Justice Sandeep Mehta had written to the CGI about Rajasthan
[0:59] Speaker 1: High Court Acting Chief Justice S.P. Sharma asking that he
[1:03] Speaker 1: should be transferred. In this letter, Justice Mehta alleged that
[1:07] Speaker 1: Justice Sharma, who is actually due to retire in about
[1:10] Speaker 1: a month, was engaging in alleged gross maladministration, misusing his
[1:15] Speaker 1: administrative powers and was indulging in favouritism in the functioning
[1:20] Speaker 1: of the Rajasthan High Court. Serious allegations that have now
[1:24] Speaker 1: resulted in Justice Sharma going on leave and the Supreme
[1:27] Speaker 1: Court Collegium recommending the Chhattisgarh High Court judge Sanjay K.
[1:31] Speaker 1: Agarwal to replace him. The Supreme Court Collegium is of
[1:35] Speaker 1: course the system by which judges of the Supreme Court
[1:38] Speaker 1: and High Courts are appointed and transferred in the country.
[1:42] Speaker 1: To talk more about this case further and understand how
[1:45] Speaker 1: this system works, my colleague Shashank Bhargav speaks to the
[1:49] Speaker 1: Indian Express's National Legal Affairs Editor, Apoorva Vishwanath.
[1:54] Speaker 2: Apoorva, you know, if this were to happen in an
[1:56] Speaker 2: office where An HOD writes to the CEO that, look,
[2:01] Speaker 2: this other HOD is not behaving in an appropriate manner
[2:06] Speaker 2: and is misusing his power. It would be considered very
[2:10] Speaker 2: unusual and it would ruffle a lot of feathers. But
[2:13] Speaker 2: tell us how much more unusual is this in the
[2:17] Speaker 2: context of the judiciary?
[2:20] Speaker 3: So this is highly unusual.
[2:22] Speaker 4: It's probably unprecedented and never has happened before in this manner.
[2:27] Speaker 4: But it's not entirely out of the institutional framework that
[2:30] Speaker 4: we have for the conduct of judges and sort of
[2:34] Speaker 4: how that is regulated, right? So it is that individual,
[2:38] Speaker 4: the collegium does embark upon this inquiry, which is a
[2:42] Speaker 4: discrete inquiry. And If there is any issue with a
[2:46] Speaker 4: particular judge, it is brought to the notice of the
[2:49] Speaker 4: Chief Justice of India through these informal, confidential manner. What
[2:54] Speaker 4: is unusual here, however, is that from the letters that
[2:58] Speaker 4: Justice Sandeep Mehta, who is a judge of the Supreme Court,
[3:01] Speaker 4: has written, We understand that he's written about two letters earlier,
[3:07] Speaker 4: which gives us the impression that they were not acted upon,
[3:10] Speaker 4: that no action was taken on that, which is why
[3:13] Speaker 4: he was forced to write a third letter. And then
[3:15] Speaker 4: we learned about this communication between Justice Mehta and.
[3:19] Speaker 3: The Chief Justice of India.
[3:20] Speaker 4: So that part is what is drawing public attention and
[3:25] Speaker 4: is quite unusual. But, you know, even in other cases,
[3:29] Speaker 4: small or big, Unfortunately, or fortunately, this collegium system of
[3:34] Speaker 4: appointing judges that we have does work in these whispers.
[3:38] Speaker 4: That is the institutional mechanism that we have.
[3:42] Speaker 2: And can you talk about what are the allegations that
[3:44] Speaker 2: Justice Mehta is making against Justice Sharma?
[3:49] Speaker 4: Look, Justice Mehta is basically accusing the acting Chief Justice
[3:54] Speaker 4: Sharma of quote-unquote misuse of powers and that he had
[3:58] Speaker 4: received several complaints which raised doubts on the acting Chief
[4:03] Speaker 4: Justice's integrity. Now, some of these pertain to some judicial orders,
[4:08] Speaker 4: but I don't want to go into the specifics of
[4:09] Speaker 4: what these allegations are and the cases involved because this
[4:14] Speaker 4: is what.
[4:15] Speaker 3: Needs to be examined and which is what the Collegium
[4:17] Speaker 3: is now going to do anyway.
[4:19] Speaker 2: And one structural problem was also that he had been
[4:21] Speaker 2: an acting Chief Justice for about 11 months, right? How
[4:26] Speaker 2: unusual is that?
[4:28] Speaker 4: Look, conventionally, an acting chief justice is appointed for the
[4:31] Speaker 4: interim period till a chief justice is appointed to that.
[4:35] Speaker 3: Role full time, right?
[4:36] Speaker 4: So in the interim, usually it's done for, you know,
[4:39] Speaker 4: a time of a few weeks.
[4:40] Speaker 3: To say a couple of months.
[4:42] Speaker 4: For 11 months is unusual, highly unusual. But it's not
[4:47] Speaker 4: that it's not happened before. I can think of one
[4:49] Speaker 4: or two instances. In fact, one in Delhi when Justice
[4:52] Speaker 4: Geeta Mittal was the acting chief.
[4:54] Speaker 3: Justice, you know. So there are a couple of instances
[4:57] Speaker 3: where this has happened. But it's highly.
[4:59] Speaker 4: Unusual and there is no reason why a high court
[5:02] Speaker 4: should not have a full-time Chief Justice.
[5:05] Speaker 2: Right, and on Monday, the Collegium met and in the meeting,
[5:09] Speaker 2: it was decided that Chhattisgarh High Court Judge Justice Sanjay K.
[5:13] Speaker 2: Agarwal should replace him. Talk about what we know about
[5:17] Speaker 2: this meeting.
[5:18] Speaker 4: So, I mean, the last week, The Supreme Court was
[5:21] Speaker 4: actually on an extended weekend.
[5:23] Speaker 3: It was a long holiday and the Chief Justice has returned.
[5:26] Speaker 4: So clearly the first order of business was to look
[5:29] Speaker 4: at these issues, especially the one involving Rajasthan High Court
[5:33] Speaker 4: acting Chief Justice. So the collegium was already considering recommending
[5:37] Speaker 4: chief justices to these other high courts where there are
[5:40] Speaker 4: currently acting chief justices. Last month, they had made about
[5:44] Speaker 4: four recommendations and three more were pending, one of which
[5:47] Speaker 4: is the Rajasthan case. So the meeting that they had
[5:51] Speaker 4: on Monday, it seems that firstly, a firm decision was
[5:54] Speaker 4: taken that a full-time chief justice needs to be sent
[5:59] Speaker 4: to Rajasthan immediately. So which is why Justice Sanjay Garwal's
[6:04] Speaker 4: transfer was notified as soon as the meeting ended. Of course,
[6:07] Speaker 4: they were also appointed two other chief justices, one of
[6:11] Speaker 4: whom is actually the second senior most judge of the
[6:14] Speaker 4: Rajasthan High Court.
[6:16] Speaker 3: The acting chief.
[6:16] Speaker 4: Justice just hours before the collegium met had already gone
[6:20] Speaker 4: on leave. And the second senior most judge has also
[6:24] Speaker 4: been transferred and appointed chief justice of the Jammu and
[6:27] Speaker 4: Kashmir High Court. So it is in a way a
[6:30] Speaker 4: fresh start. you know, and a new chief justice comes
[6:32] Speaker 4: to Rajasthan and takes over. As far as what happens
[6:35] Speaker 4: to the allegations and the complaints, what we have learned
[6:38] Speaker 4: from our sources is that the collegium decided that these
[6:42] Speaker 4: are not, you know, small allegations that can be ignored
[6:45] Speaker 4: or that can be brushed under the carpet just because
[6:48] Speaker 4: the judge has gone on leave.
[6:49] Speaker 3: And these will be examined.
[6:52] Speaker 4: And usually such an examination is done by the chief justice.
[6:56] Speaker 4: So whatever those judicial orders are in question, the other
[7:00] Speaker 4: actions of the judge, they will all be looked at
[7:03] Speaker 4: and seen whether they're mere coincidences or otherwise.
[7:08] Speaker 2: And you know, the first letter by Justice Mehta was
[7:11] Speaker 2: written presumably weeks ago, right? Why couldn't the collegium meet
[7:16] Speaker 2: earlier and take a call on this?
[7:19] Speaker 3: So there are two reasons, you know, broadly, which we understand.
[7:22] Speaker 4: One, why the appointment of Chief Justice itself took so long,
[7:26] Speaker 4: especially for Rajasthan, because.
[7:28] Speaker 3: You know, he's been there for over a year now.
[7:30] Speaker 4: That's probably because, you know, only one High Court's file
[7:34] Speaker 4: is not usually taken up for consideration. So the Collegium
[7:37] Speaker 4: was waiting probably to take this up with other High
[7:40] Speaker 4: Courts as well. So the last time they met, there
[7:42] Speaker 4: were already seven High Courts which had acting Chief Justices.
[7:46] Speaker 3: This was about last month.
[7:47] Speaker 4: So they decided to go about recommending chief justices for
[7:50] Speaker 4: these high courts.
[7:51] Speaker 3: In the initial batch, four chief.
[7:53] Speaker 4: Justices were recommended and three more were pending, which was
[7:57] Speaker 4: including the Rajasthan High Court judge.
[7:59] Speaker 3: So it would have been part of the deliberations that way.
[8:02] Speaker 4: So one is, you know, that is, of course, the
[8:04] Speaker 4: benign things take its own course point of view.
[8:08] Speaker 3: The other is also that, you know, even.
[8:10] Speaker 4: If there were complaints and we know from Justice Mehta's
[8:14] Speaker 4: latest letter, that he had also written twice.
[8:17] Speaker 3: Before right so in this why.
[8:19] Speaker 4: Did the collegium act not act when the first letter
[8:22] Speaker 4: came how does you know what explains the delay one
[8:26] Speaker 4: view from what we've learned from our sources and you
[8:29] Speaker 4: know that in the collegium is also that look this
[8:31] Speaker 4: is somebody who spent his entire career as a judge
[8:34] Speaker 4: and he's on the eve of his retirement it's just
[8:37] Speaker 4: a month to go to retirement So, even when there
[8:40] Speaker 4: are allegations like that, you have to be circumspect and
[8:43] Speaker 4: not react in haste. So, it's not as if the
[8:46] Speaker 4: collegium had decided that they will not act on it.
[8:48] Speaker 4: But of course, there was a delay and a delay
[8:51] Speaker 4: which led one of their own colleagues to go public
[8:54] Speaker 4: in a sense with his complaint. So, yeah, that's something
[8:58] Speaker 4: that the collegium will have to explain whether that's.
[9:00] Speaker 3: Justified or not.
[9:02] Speaker 2: And can you also talk about in what ways an
[9:04] Speaker 2: acting Chief Justice different from a Chief Justice, in what
[9:08] Speaker 2: way do their powers differ?
[9:11] Speaker 3: See, functionally, not.
[9:13] Speaker 4: Much because they are occupying the office of the Chief Justice, right?
[9:17] Speaker 4: But the tag acting means that you're there for a
[9:19] Speaker 4: temporary role and you really don't know how long you're
[9:22] Speaker 4: in that position for. So conventionally, acting Chief Justices did
[9:27] Speaker 4: not take a lot of significant decisions. Like if something
[9:32] Speaker 4: was very important, like, for example, recommending a names for appointment.
[9:36] Speaker 3: As judges to the high court, right?
[9:38] Speaker 4: If you had a very short tenure, the understanding is
[9:42] Speaker 4: that you would not have time to make an assessment
[9:45] Speaker 4: and check whether somebody is worth being.
[9:48] Speaker 3: Appointed a judge of the high court.
[9:50] Speaker 4: So, you know, you wouldn't send names for appointment.
[9:53] Speaker 3: You wouldn't take any significant decisions.
[9:55] Speaker 4: You would wait for, which is, you know, how in
[9:57] Speaker 4: governments you have caretaker governments, which don't take any major
[10:00] Speaker 4: policy decisions, which wait for the next government to come.
[10:03] Speaker 3: And kind of make these decisions.
[10:05] Speaker 5: Right.
[10:06] Speaker 3: So it's that. But there is.
[10:07] Speaker 4: Also this question about, you know, when you have somebody
[10:10] Speaker 4: for 11 months, do you stall the work of the
[10:13] Speaker 4: high court for those many months, kind of let it
[10:16] Speaker 4: freeze administratively? Or do you kind of continue taking these
[10:20] Speaker 4: decisions as if.
[10:22] Speaker 3: You were the chief justice?
[10:23] Speaker 4: So unfortunately, how our collegium system works is as a
[10:27] Speaker 4: network of informal conversations and inquiries. So it is entirely
[10:32] Speaker 4: possible that even as acting chief justice, you're asked to
[10:36] Speaker 4: make certain decisions or you take certain decisions because you
[10:39] Speaker 4: don't want the high court to suffer. But having said that,
[10:42] Speaker 4: you know, these are very, very nuanced issues because the
[10:46] Speaker 4: nature of allegations that are.
[10:49] Speaker 3: Being made happens. against a judge, they're very serious in nature.
[10:53] Speaker 4: So it needs to be discussed. The Chief Justice has
[10:56] Speaker 4: to address these concerns. And, you know, there must be
[11:00] Speaker 4: accountability in a sense. Why did it take the collegium
[11:04] Speaker 4: so many months? Why did the collegium... not meet earlier.
[11:09] Speaker 4: One view, like I said, of course, is you waited
[11:11] Speaker 4: for the whole file to be together. But when you
[11:13] Speaker 4: see that one high court has an acting chief justice
[11:16] Speaker 4: for so long and there are obvious problems there, what.
[11:19] Speaker 3: Did the chief justice or the collegium do at that time?
[11:22] Speaker 4: So these are all very serious questions that the collegium
[11:25] Speaker 4: will have to answer.
[11:27] Speaker 2: And you mentioned how the collegium system works in a
[11:29] Speaker 2: very informal way, right? Especially the way the information is
[11:33] Speaker 2: shared and how they pick judges. So can you talk
[11:37] Speaker 2: about just how informal it actually is? Is it just
[11:40] Speaker 2: really asking, you know, your colleagues about a particular person
[11:44] Speaker 2: about their history and the kind of cases they've dealt with?
[11:48] Speaker 4: Yeah, to a large extent, it is that someone who
[11:51] Speaker 4: was in the collegium at a point was explaining this
[11:54] Speaker 4: to me and said, it's pretty much how you go
[11:57] Speaker 4: about inquiring about a groom.
[12:00] Speaker 2: Right?
[12:00] Speaker 3: A potential groom.
[12:01] Speaker 4: How do you find out if they come from a
[12:04] Speaker 4: good family or not?
[12:05] Speaker 3: What is their salary? What do their parents do?
[12:08] Speaker 4: You know, the typical way of finding out more about
[12:12] Speaker 4: this relationship, right? Unfortunately, there are very few things that
[12:16] Speaker 4: the collegium does differently. Say a judge from that particular
[12:19] Speaker 4: high court is presumed to have knowledge about the workings of.
[12:24] Speaker 3: That high court. So they give an opinion. They say, oh,
[12:27] Speaker 3: so-and-so candidate is okay, so-and-so is not okay.
[12:30] Speaker 4: And there are, of course, some things written down in
[12:32] Speaker 4: the file, which is the candidate's income tax records, the
[12:36] Speaker 4: number of cases they would have argued, reported judgments of
[12:41] Speaker 4: in cases in which they've argued and things like that.
[12:43] Speaker 3: And of course, on top of.
[12:45] Speaker 4: All of this, there is the IB file as well.
[12:48] Speaker 4: The Intelligence Bureau would have given their own inputs, which
[12:51] Speaker 4: sometimes are gross miscalculations as well. You know, there is
[12:55] Speaker 4: this Very famous story in the judicial circles where a
[12:59] Speaker 4: teetotaler was nicknamed Boozer by his friends and the IB
[13:03] Speaker 4: took him to be an alcoholic.
[13:05] Speaker 2: Right.
[13:05] Speaker 3: So these things also happen.
[13:07] Speaker 4: But by and large, there is an IB report and
[13:10] Speaker 4: there is income tax filings. There is a list of cases.
[13:14] Speaker 4: which this lawyer has argued, which have turned into reported judgments, right?
[13:17] Speaker 4: With this now, a judge who is recommending, first, it
[13:21] Speaker 4: is the High Court Collegium, which is a set of
[13:23] Speaker 4: three judges, the Chief Justice of that High Court, plus
[13:25] Speaker 4: two senior most judges.
[13:27] Speaker 3: They would first recommend.
[13:28] Speaker 4: This name to the Collegium of the Supreme Court. So
[13:32] Speaker 4: the idea is that this lawyer would have appeared before
[13:35] Speaker 4: them at.
[13:35] Speaker 3: Some point, and then they have picked. But, you know,
[13:39] Speaker 3: let me be honest here.
[13:40] Speaker 4: In a high court, the chief justice is, say, hearing
[13:42] Speaker 4: about 50 cases a day.
[13:44] Speaker 3: So there are about 50 to 80 lawyers who appear
[13:47] Speaker 3: before him reasonably.
[13:48] Speaker 4: Or let's say the same lawyer is appearing in 10
[13:50] Speaker 4: cases in a day, right?
[13:51] Speaker 3: So about 50 lawyers who appear before him.
[13:53] Speaker 4: And in those 50 lawyers, the judge has to make
[13:57] Speaker 4: an assessment of who could be a judge amongst them.
[14:00] Speaker 3: So it is.
[14:01] Speaker 4: Obvious that sometimes when you cast your net, you cast
[14:04] Speaker 4: it closer to your circles.
[14:07] Speaker 2: Yeah, and one would imagine that in a system as
[14:09] Speaker 2: informal as this, biases would creep in. For example, even
[14:14] Speaker 2: if we take the analogy of, you know, someone finding
[14:16] Speaker 2: a potential groom and asking about him, you know, the
[14:20] Speaker 2: answer is, would change depending on who's asking them and
[14:24] Speaker 2: who's answering them.
[14:26] Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
[14:28] Speaker 4: Take the case of Rajasthan High Court, for example. There
[14:30] Speaker 4: is fierce rivalry between the Jodhpur bar and the Jaipur bar.
[14:35] Speaker 4: Even about this incident, depending on who you ask, you
[14:39] Speaker 4: get a different version of events, right? So that's bound
[14:42] Speaker 4: to happen in every area, whether that is caste, whether
[14:46] Speaker 4: that is gender, whether that is somebody who comes from
[14:50] Speaker 4: an established legal family. You know, first of all, the
[14:54] Speaker 4: chief justice or the senior judges have to notice you
[14:57] Speaker 4: while you're arguing and then think of you as a judge.
[15:00] Speaker 4: Then you give your consent and this name goes up.
[15:03] Speaker 4: And then, you know, when it comes to the Supreme Court,
[15:05] Speaker 4: what the Supreme Court Collegium does is it sends the
[15:08] Speaker 4: file to who are called consultee judges. Now, these consultee
[15:12] Speaker 4: judges are people who are familiar with the affairs of
[15:14] Speaker 4: that high court. Say in the past, you've been a
[15:17] Speaker 4: chief justice of that high court or it is your
[15:19] Speaker 4: parent high court, right? So they presume that because you
[15:23] Speaker 4: have an affiliation with high court, that high court, you
[15:25] Speaker 4: might know something more about it. So these consultee judges
[15:28] Speaker 4: give their opinions. And then finally, the collegium has to
[15:31] Speaker 4: take a call and send this name to the government. Again,
[15:34] Speaker 4: the idea is that because it passes through so many
[15:36] Speaker 4: layers that these biases, this kind of, you know, unnecessary
[15:40] Speaker 4: scrutiny would have kind of crossed itself somewhere. But having
[15:43] Speaker 4: said that, it can also multiply, you know, and still
[15:47] Speaker 4: end up where it does.
[15:48] Speaker 3: So it is.
[15:49] Speaker 4: Unfortunately the way in which we have institutionalized appointment of judges.
[15:55] Speaker 2: Haven't they ever considered a more formal system like an
[15:58] Speaker 2: exam or a series of interviews?
[16:02] Speaker 4: There have been experiments within the collegium system for this.
[16:05] Speaker 4: Like one of the examples I can think of is
[16:08] Speaker 4: at some point, the Supreme Court Collegium started interviewing judges
[16:11] Speaker 4: as well.
[16:12] Speaker 3: You know, they would ask them to either come down.
[16:14] Speaker 4: To Delhi or when these judges went somewhere, they would
[16:17] Speaker 4: meet the judges there and kind of have a conversation
[16:20] Speaker 4: and see how they fare. But we haven't really progressed
[16:24] Speaker 4: beyond that because the limitation is that.
[16:27] Speaker 3: It's still a judicial affair.
[16:29] Speaker 4: And it is still something that happens in a very
[16:32] Speaker 4: opaque manner by judges, where they are essentially appointing, you know,
[16:37] Speaker 4: judges by themselves.
[16:38] Speaker 3: So that's the structural problem with the collegium.
[16:46] Speaker 1: And next, we talk about Maharashtra, where a protest by
[16:50] Speaker 1: tribal students has forced the state government to roll back
[16:53] Speaker 1: parts of its new hostile rules. For 13 days, Students
[16:58] Speaker 1: in Pune had been agitating against changes introduced by the
[17:02] Speaker 1: Tribal Development Department for government-run tribal hostels. These hostels are
[17:07] Speaker 1: meant for scheduled tribe students pursuing secondary, higher secondary and
[17:12] Speaker 1: college education. and currently house around 58,000 to 60,000 students
[17:17] Speaker 1: across the state. Now, when this new government resolution was introduced,
[17:22] Speaker 1: it raised major concerns about inadequate allowances, poor facilities, and
[17:27] Speaker 1: allegations that female students returning after long leave were in
[17:31] Speaker 1: some cases asked to undergo pregnancy tests. Leader of opposition
[17:35] Speaker 1: Rahul Gandhi later even wrote to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis,
[17:39] Speaker 1: saying he was shocked by these allegations. So to understand
[17:43] Speaker 1: what triggered the tribal students' agitation and what this incident
[17:46] Speaker 1: tells us about the condition of tribal hostels in Maharashtra,
[17:50] Speaker 1: we're joined by The Indian Express's Ankita Deshkar. Ankita, could
[17:54] Speaker 1: you start by explaining a bit about what exactly were
[17:57] Speaker 1: the new hostel rules that triggered such a strong reaction
[18:01] Speaker 1: from tribal students?
[18:02] Speaker 6: See, so basically government hostels for Scheduled Tribe students are
[18:07] Speaker 6: governed by multiple government resolutions, which we call as GRs.
[18:11] Speaker 6: So earlier, there was no upper limit for admission to
[18:15] Speaker 6: SD government hostels under the earlier rules. And there was
[18:18] Speaker 6: no explicit provision barring hostel residents from participating in protests
[18:23] Speaker 6: or hunger strikes or protest marches. And the hostel system
[18:27] Speaker 6: also is meant to provide accommodation and related facilities to
[18:30] Speaker 6: these students pursuing higher education. Now on August 5th, 2026,
[18:35] Speaker 6: there was a new government resolution that was issued. So
[18:38] Speaker 6: the Maharashtra government sort of issued this GR saying that,
[18:43] Speaker 6: and which was particularly for hostels for ST students, that
[18:47] Speaker 6: is Adivasi community. The GR consolidated various earlier resolutions relating
[18:53] Speaker 6: to hostel facilities and MNPs. And for the first time,
[18:56] Speaker 6: it explicitly prohibited students staying in the government hostels. hostels
[19:00] Speaker 6: from participating in hunger strikes, protest march and similar protest
[19:04] Speaker 6: activities related to several organizations. Then the GR also introduced
[19:08] Speaker 6: an upper age limit of 26 years for students seeking
[19:12] Speaker 6: admission to SD government hostels. So this was sort of
[19:16] Speaker 6: a significant change because the earlier rules did not prescribe
[19:19] Speaker 6: an age restriction. So the GR stated that the students
[19:22] Speaker 6: eligible for the Government of India scholarship could also seek
[19:26] Speaker 6: hostel admission if they were not more than 26 years
[19:29] Speaker 6: old at the time of admission specifically. And also the
[19:33] Speaker 6: old GR, that is the August 5 GR, mentioned that
[19:36] Speaker 6: in girls hostel, the administration must maintain a menstrual cycle register.
[19:41] Speaker 6: That is, the hostel warden is required to closely monitor
[19:44] Speaker 6: and personally verify and also sign off on the monthly
[19:48] Speaker 6: menstrual records of each female guest. So specifically the first
[19:52] Speaker 6: two that is the age cap and the protest's that
[19:55] Speaker 6: the protest should not happen in hostels these were the
[19:57] Speaker 6: triggering point but there were several points in this GR
[20:02] Speaker 6: that were like these were not related to the hostel
[20:06] Speaker 6: students or they did not agree with it and that's
[20:09] Speaker 6: how sort of the protests began.
[20:11] Speaker 1: Right and so this age limit restriction that you spoke
[20:14] Speaker 1: of talk about why did students objected so strongly and
[20:18] Speaker 1: who would have been excluded by a 26 or even
[20:20] Speaker 1: 30 year cutoff.
[20:24] Speaker 6: So what happened was that these students basically took gaps
[20:30] Speaker 6: for preparation of NEET and other competitive exams. So when
[20:35] Speaker 6: they come back to the city and they try staying
[20:38] Speaker 6: at the hostel, they come under the age bracket.
[20:41] Speaker 3: So the students.
[20:42] Speaker 6: Argued that when they pursued masters, their age would be
[20:46] Speaker 6: approximately 25.
[20:48] Speaker 5: Years and it's a two-year course.
[20:49] Speaker 6: So they would not be able to stay in the
[20:52] Speaker 6: hostel for the another year. They would have to find
[20:54] Speaker 6: their accommodation separately. Also, there are a few students who
[20:58] Speaker 6: also wanted to pursue PhD. So their PhD courses are
[21:01] Speaker 6: around for three to five years. So again, they did
[21:04] Speaker 6: not fit in the age bracket. And earlier, there was
[21:08] Speaker 6: no age restriction. So student at any age would be
[21:11] Speaker 6: able to stay at the hostel facility that the government provides.
[21:15] Speaker 6: So that was the particular concern that all the students had.
[21:19] Speaker 6: And the students, especially pursuing master's and PhD program, they
[21:23] Speaker 6: were the most affected is what the students thought.
[21:26] Speaker 1: Ankita, you highlight how some of the students you spoke
[21:29] Speaker 1: with alleged that women returning after long absences had in
[21:34] Speaker 1: some cases been asked to undergo pregnancy tests. So how
[21:38] Speaker 1: do we read that?
[21:39] Speaker 6: Yeah.
[21:40] Speaker 5: So these are just the allegations of the students.
[21:43] Speaker 6: And when we spoke to officials regarding it, they specifically
[21:47] Speaker 6: told us that pregnancy tests were strictly barred by the administration.
[21:51] Speaker 6: The only concern in the old GR was that the
[21:55] Speaker 6: warden was required to maintain a menstrual cycle register.
[21:59] Speaker 5: And that also triggered most of the students.
[22:01] Speaker 6: But as of now, we do not have a Proofs
[22:06] Speaker 6: about the pregnancy test that the students underwent.
[22:08] Speaker 5: So these are allegations and these are students' perspectives.
[22:13] Speaker 1: And Ankita, the hostel in itself is a welfare facility
[22:16] Speaker 1: provided by the state. So how significant is this rule
[22:19] Speaker 1: of hostel residents being barred from joining hunger strikes or
[22:24] Speaker 1: protest marches?
[22:26] Speaker 6: Yeah, so there were a few officials who sort of
[22:30] Speaker 6: thought that maybe this could create a much better academic
[22:35] Speaker 6: sort of an atmosphere because the new students who came
[22:38] Speaker 6: to the hostel facilities would then join certain organizations because
[22:43] Speaker 6: they would come to the city for the first time
[22:45] Speaker 6: and their focus would be diverted from the education that
[22:49] Speaker 6: they basically required to the protests and the organizations that
[22:53] Speaker 6: they would join. So basically, when Certain officials spoke about this.
[22:58] Speaker 6: They had this thing in their mind. But again, this
[23:01] Speaker 6: GR was revised on 14th of August and all of
[23:05] Speaker 6: these conditions were sort of revised. So the 5th August
[23:10] Speaker 6: GR had maximum age bracket of 26 years. The revised
[23:14] Speaker 6: GR that came out on August 15th that had maximum
[23:18] Speaker 6: age bracket of 30 years. And the government also rolled
[23:21] Speaker 6: back the controversial provision that barred the hostel residents from
[23:24] Speaker 6: participating in all of the protest marches and similar activities.
[23:28] Speaker 6: And the explicit prohibition on students in such protests, participating
[23:33] Speaker 6: in such protests, it was basically removed in the revised GR.
[23:36] Speaker 6: So this age gap that we are speaking about, which
[23:40] Speaker 6: went to 30 years, so even the students wanted that
[23:44] Speaker 6: also age bracket to be removed. And recently that age
[23:48] Speaker 6: bracket was also removed. So this entire GR has also
[23:53] Speaker 6: rolled back and it has been stayed for now.
[23:56] Speaker 1: And Ankita, we of course know that these hostels play
[24:00] Speaker 1: an integral role in making secondary and higher education possible
[24:04] Speaker 1: for tribal students. Talk about how many students depend on
[24:09] Speaker 1: them and how large is this hostel system?
[24:12] Speaker 6: So these students come from the tribal belt of Maharashtra,
[24:16] Speaker 6: mostly from Garchiroli, Gondia, the districts that have never seen
[24:22] Speaker 6: any kind of development. So these students complete their education
[24:26] Speaker 6: up to like 10.12 standard in.
[24:28] Speaker 5: These particular areas, because there.
[24:30] Speaker 6: Are schools, but there are no good colleges in that
[24:33] Speaker 6: particular belt. So they seek admission to these hostels and
[24:38] Speaker 6: they stay here and they study at different colleges in
[24:41] Speaker 6: these cities. So like Pune has these hostels, Thane has
[24:46] Speaker 6: this department, Mumbai has these hostels, Nagpur has these hostels specifically.
[24:50] Speaker 6: So there is Amravati that has these hostels. Also these
[24:54] Speaker 6: tribal development departments, they act as guardians for these students.
[24:59] Speaker 6: So that's how the officials also put it. The responsibility
[25:02] Speaker 6: entirely of these students when they come to a city
[25:05] Speaker 6: to study, to make their future better, all of this
[25:09] Speaker 6: rests with the tribal development department.
[25:12] Speaker 1: And so now that the age limit has been scrapped,
[25:15] Speaker 1: what are the larger demands that remain unresolved?
[25:19] Speaker 6: Okay, so when I spoke to a few students that
[25:21] Speaker 6: why are they still protesting, their explanation was that the
[25:25] Speaker 6: GR has been stayed and.
[25:27] Speaker 5: Not cancelled entirely.
[25:29] Speaker 6: So that's one thing that the demand is. Another demand
[25:32] Speaker 6: that I understood comes from the recent incidents that happened
[25:36] Speaker 6: in Garchiroli, which involved... The death of three kids, the
[25:40] Speaker 6: death of three girls in the ashram school in Garchiroli
[25:43] Speaker 6: due to snake bite because they had to sleep on
[25:46] Speaker 6: the floors. So they are demanding a good compensation for
[25:49] Speaker 6: the family. And some of the student factions are also
[25:53] Speaker 6: demanding resignation of Ashok.
[25:55] Speaker 2: Okay, so.
[25:56] Speaker 6: Also, there are sort of groups that have happened in
[25:59] Speaker 6: these student protests. So there is one group that's demanding
[26:03] Speaker 6: the minister's resignation. There's another group that's okay with whatever's happening.
[26:08] Speaker 6: There's another group that wants all these VR to be
[26:10] Speaker 6: cancelled and not stayed. And all of these things are
[26:15] Speaker 6: basically what the tribal protests are still going on. But yeah,
[26:20] Speaker 6: so I forgot to mention one point when we speak
[26:23] Speaker 6: about the age limit. The department also has something called
[26:30] Speaker 6: as where if a student is unable to find an accommodation,
[26:35] Speaker 6: they get a scholar. So like if they are not
[26:38] Speaker 6: here in the hostel, they get certain scholarship to find
[26:42] Speaker 6: their accommodation elsewhere. And through this particular scheme of the government,
[26:47] Speaker 6: they can also pay their rent and fees and everything.
[26:51] Speaker 5: So that was also a point.
[26:53] Speaker 6: And the students found that since there are already hostels
[26:58] Speaker 6: and they can stay here in the hostel with the
[27:01] Speaker 6: students like their own, which they treat them as family,
[27:04] Speaker 6: it is sort of impractical to go on the hunt.
[27:09] Speaker 6: for an accommodation outside using these schemes. So all of
[27:12] Speaker 6: these things are largely contributing to the protest still going on.
[27:16] Speaker 1: And Ankita, when you spoke with the students during your reportage,
[27:20] Speaker 1: what did they tell you about their journey of entering
[27:22] Speaker 1: higher education? Because you highlight how most of them have
[27:26] Speaker 1: faced structural barriers, say schooling gaps or financial pressures. So
[27:32] Speaker 1: how difficult is this transition for them?
[27:35] Speaker 6: So what happens is when such students come to SITI,
[27:38] Speaker 6: they come in with an inferior complex is what I
[27:41] Speaker 6: have observed. That many of these students do not have
[27:45] Speaker 6: the kind of proficiency in sort of spoken English that
[27:49] Speaker 6: they need or even spoken Marathi for that matter. They
[27:52] Speaker 6: consider all of these into a subject called as Boli Bhasha,
[27:55] Speaker 6: which are a part of our regular curriculum and regular
[27:59] Speaker 6: competitive exams. Even Marathi is a part of regular competitive exams.
[28:03] Speaker 6: And most of these students come from a tribal belt
[28:06] Speaker 6: where they speak Bonbi or Korku, these different languages. For them,
[28:10] Speaker 6: coming here and speaking fluent Marathi or English or Hindi
[28:14] Speaker 6: for that matter is also very important. So all of
[28:17] Speaker 6: these students develop sort of an inferiority complex when they
[28:20] Speaker 6: come here in the city. And for them, reading, availability
[28:25] Speaker 6: of reading material, availability of courses, availability of admissions at
[28:31] Speaker 6: various hostels, that sort of becomes a concern. And so
[28:35] Speaker 6: the entire journey is very tough because imagine someone coming
[28:39] Speaker 6: from a tribal world, you basically keep yourself in their shoes.
[28:44] Speaker 6: Imagine yourself going to an entirely different city where you
[28:47] Speaker 6: do not know anyone or you do not know how
[28:50] Speaker 6: to seek admission to colleges or you do not know
[28:54] Speaker 6: the language that better and then trying to study there.
[28:57] Speaker 6: So all of this becomes very important for them. And
[28:59] Speaker 6: for them, this hostel sort of then becomes a sort
[29:03] Speaker 6: of family and their comfort zone. And because several of
[29:07] Speaker 6: them are actually first-generation learners, if you try finding out...
[29:12] Speaker 6: how much education their previous generation has had, they would
[29:16] Speaker 6: just say that they went to the school that was
[29:19] Speaker 6: their village. And usually the villages have these schools up
[29:23] Speaker 6: to primary education only. So there are certain schools that
[29:25] Speaker 6: go on till 4th or 8th or 10th and that's it.
[29:28] Speaker 5: So their previous generation did not even.
[29:30] Speaker 6: Get to have an opportunity to have a higher education
[29:34] Speaker 6: due to lack of funds and everything. All of these
[29:36] Speaker 6: schemes and all of these resolutions and all of these
[29:39] Speaker 6: legislations say, facilities, MMTs, all of these matter for tribal
[29:43] Speaker 6: students a lot.
[29:50] Speaker 1: And in the end, We talk about a Delhi sleeper
[29:53] Speaker 1: bus in which a 17-year-old girl was allegedly gang-raped last
[29:58] Speaker 1: month and the questions now being raised over how the
[30:01] Speaker 1: vehicle was allowed to continue operating despite multiple apparent safety violations.
[30:08] Speaker 1: The Indian Express has found that the bus had been
[30:11] Speaker 1: issued 11 traffic chalans, including seven in July alone, for
[30:16] Speaker 1: violations ranging from speeding to driving without a permit. Yet
[30:20] Speaker 1: it continued to operate. As reported by the Indian Express's
[30:23] Speaker 1: Shakshi Chand, investigators have also found that the bus had
[30:28] Speaker 1: heavy curtains covering its windows, restricting visibility from outside, something
[30:32] Speaker 1: that violates safety norms for commercial passenger vehicles. And there
[30:37] Speaker 1: is another major concern. The bus does not appear to
[30:40] Speaker 1: have had a functioning CCTV system, even though such systems
[30:45] Speaker 1: were mandated for commercial passenger vehicles only. after the 2012
[30:48] Speaker 1: Nirbhaya gang rape. The law also requires these vehicles to
[30:52] Speaker 1: have GPS-based tracking systems and panic buttons connected to emergency
[30:57] Speaker 1: response mechanisms. Police are now checking whether those systems were
[31:02] Speaker 1: present on this bus and if they were, whether they
[31:05] Speaker 1: generated any alerts during the journey. According to police, the
[31:09] Speaker 1: bus had been travelling from a workshop in Greater Noida
[31:12] Speaker 1: towards its parking location in North Delhi, when the driver
[31:16] Speaker 1: and conductor allegedly persuaded the teenager to board near Parichok.
[31:21] Speaker 1: The bus then travelled roughly 47 kilometres through Greater Noida,
[31:25] Speaker 1: Noida and Delhi, passing major roads and even police checkpoints
[31:30] Speaker 1: without being stopped. During that journey, the girl was allegedly
[31:34] Speaker 1: sexually assaulted.
[31:35] Speaker 3: By both men.
[31:36] Speaker 1: She was later left near the ring road in Kashmiri
[31:38] Speaker 1: Gate area, where she approached police for help. Officers arranged
[31:42] Speaker 1: a medical examination, registered a case and traced the bus
[31:46] Speaker 1: within four hours using CCTV footage. Both accused were subsequently arrested.
[31:55] Speaker 3: You were listening to Three Things by The Indian Express.
[31:57] Speaker 1: Today's show was edited and mixed by Suresh Bavar and
[32:00] Speaker 1: produced by Shashank Bhargav and me, Itchha Sharma. If you
[32:04] Speaker 1: like the show, do subscribe to us wherever you get
[32:06] Speaker 1: your podcast. You can also recommend it to someone you
[32:09] Speaker 1: think may like it, with a friend or in your family.
[32:12] Speaker 1: This is the best way for people to get to
[32:14] Speaker 1: know about us. You can also tweet us at Express
[32:17] Speaker 1: Podcast or write to us at podcast at indianexpress.com.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.