The RSS-affiliated student organisation said its Bengaluru unit had sent representations to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Union Education Minister Pralhad Joshi and Union Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal, asking the government to intervene over the proposed campus event.
The documentary, Prisoner No. 626710 is Present, directed by filmmaker Lalit Vachani, had been scheduled for screening on September 14 by NLSIU’s Law and Society Committee. The organisers postponed the programme, citing logistical and security concerns, but indicated that it could be held later after taking security requirements and the wider student community’s welfare into account.
ABVP said postponement was insufficient and called for the university to withdraw permission for the film to be screened or promoted on campus. It also sought an inquiry into the circumstances in which permission for the event was granted and alleged that complaints raised by student groups had not been adequately addressed.
The organisation argued that publicly funded educational institutions should not be used for what it described as political propaganda. It acknowledged academic freedom and open discussion as constitutional values but maintained that these should be balanced against considerations of national security, sovereignty and institutional integrity. Those assertions represent ABVP’s position and have been contested by political opponents supporting the screening.
The dispute widened on Tuesday when Karnataka Congress president B K Hariprasad criticised ABVP’s objections and described Khalid as a “nationalist”. Hariprasad argued that the student organisation had no moral authority to question Khalid and opposed efforts to prevent the documentary from being shown.
ABVP Bengaluru secretary Abhinandan Mirji responded by challenging Hariprasad’s characterisation of Khalid and questioning the Congress over its stance. The exchange moved the dispute beyond the campus and into a broader political argument over Khalid, free expression and the limits of university programming.
Khalid, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University student leader, has been in custody since September 2020 in a case concerning an alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence in northeast Delhi that year. He faces charges under the Unlawful Activities Act and other laws. Khalid has denied the allegations against him. His case remains before the courts, and the charges have not resulted in a conviction.
The Supreme Court rejected Khalid’s bail plea on January 5, while making clear that its observations were confined to bail and should not influence the trial on merits. A trial court dismissed a bail application in July, citing that ruling.
The proposed NLSIU programme was intended to mark six years since Khalid’s arrest and formed part of events described by organisers as solidarity gatherings. The film examines his imprisonment and the circumstances surrounding his continued detention while proceedings remain pending.
ABVP had initially approached the NLSIU administration seeking cancellation of the September 14 screening. After the university postponed the programme, the organisation escalated the matter to the Union government, saying a temporary deferral did not address its objections.
Its representations asked the Centre to ensure that permissions for the event were permanently withdrawn and to examine the role of the university administration and the organising committee. ABVP also called for guidelines governing the use of infrastructure at universities funded with public money for programmes involving politically contentious subjects.
NLSIU’s decision to postpone the screening cited practical and security considerations rather than an endorsement of ABVP’s demand for permanent cancellation. The university’s position left open the possibility of rescheduling the programme if arrangements could be made without compromising security or the welfare of students.
The controversy has also drawn competing student and political responses. Supporters of the screening have framed the issue around academic freedom and the right to discuss a case that remains under judicial consideration, while ABVP has argued that the event would amount to the promotion of a political narrative centred on Khalid.
