Notes From the CADI Townhall on Updated Disciplinary Procedures

On 19th October, 2026, the Committee Against Disciplinary Infractions (CADI) organised a townhall, addressing questions surrounding the university’s policies for infractions, the disciplinary procedures, the transparency of its sanctions, and the extent of student representation in the Committee. It was headed by the Chair of the Committee, Arunava Sinha, alongside the two Undergraduate representatives, Devasheesh Saxena (UG ‘28) and Chinmayi Manoj (UG ‘27). The discussion brought to light information on CADI operations, and its measures to ensure student safety. However, it also exposed multiple gaps in existing policy documentation and institutional accountability. 

Firstly, questions were asked about the disciplinary process and consequent measures of transparency that the Committee would provide. Detailing the process, CADI Chair Arunava Sinha said that the warden files a formal complaint against the student with any additional documentation required (e.g. from the infirmary), after which the student is asked for a written undertaking of their version of the immediate happenings. CADI sends the complaint and documentation as filed to the student, after which the student has the option to request a verbal deposition. The last step is for CADI to review the case and determine what sanctions to impose. 

On the question of the escalation matrix, concerns were brought up that it is not updated and does not include many new policies like Deferred Suspension. Deferred Suspension refers to a situation when an infringement qualifies for a suspension, but it is not imposed immediately and can be deferred for an indefinite period of time, usually till after the current semester has passed. Sinha explained that variations on the matrix are “not worse than anything that we have currently so it’s not a problem [that it is not in the matrix]”. With this, he also asked the student representatives to inform the student body of possible sanctions. 

Concerns about wardens potentially fabricating complaints and biased cases were also discussed, to which Sinha urged the students to approach the Committee with evidence of fabrication, while assuring that the policy documents would undergo an update. He also requested that CADI’s student representatives design a flowchart outlining the Committee’s process for the campus community, to make the disciplinary process more accessible to students.

Another notable change to the Committee is in its constituency. According to Guidelines and Regulations on Disciplinary Proceedings, July 2025 version, the total student membership in CADI was of six students: four elected UG representatives, and two students from YIF/MLS/MA programmes. The January 2026 version reduces this number to three: two elected UG representatives with one YIF/MLS/MA elected representative. When asked about the reduction, Sinha said he was neither consulted nor informed about the decision; a change that directly impacts voting outcomes, as each member holds one vote. To be noted is that the re-elections for the Masters representative and YIF representative have not taken place yet, which the Chair said the team would look into. Furthermore, both the versions fail to address PhD representation entirely. 

Concerns were also raised regarding Prof. Dheeraj Sanghi, who serves as Dean of Academic Affairs and Dean of Student Affairs, and occupies one of CADI’s three faculty seats. Attendees argued that Sanghi, who oversees CADI student elections through the Office of Student Affairs and also heads the Parents Office, holds a concentration of power that could disadvantage students. In response, Sinha stated he did not see a clear conflict of interest because every member holds a single vote and no individual makes unilateral decisions. Instead, he argued, the overlapping roles improve information flow between administrative bodies. However, he encouraged students to channel their concerns through official avenues: "If students feel concerned about this, they should raise their voice through the student government. Be heard! My stance is irrelevant here."

Mental health and student welfare formed a key part of the discussion, with the Chair’s responses almost always leading to the same idea. Prof. Sinha first clarified that mental health cases go to the Resident Life Office and that CADI does not make any decisions, explaining that CADI looks for patterns in disciplinary infractions and sometimes makes recommendations or passes on the case to relevant committees. When asked how the university accommodates students with mental health concerns, Prof. Sinha said each case is assessed individually, with input and support from the guardians/family. He noted that while the university strongly recommends families seek professional help for a student in crisis, it cannot enforce medical intervention. He emphasised that full disclosure from students helps the committee evaluate cases and provide appropriate accommodations, adding, “In case parents do not understand mental health properly, come talk to us; we can help find a solution.”

However, concerns still remained about the university recommending that students return home, particularly when home may not be a safe environment for them. When asked what alternatives were available to students for whom returning home was not a viable option, Sinha acknowledged the difficulty of such situations, raising the question of who would take responsibility if a student was left without adequate support. He maintained that the university could not leave students to manage such circumstances on their own, and that the university framed its decisions primarily around the student’s safety rather than moral or ethical judgement.

Sinha also addressed concerns about whether disciplinary actions, suspensions in particular, could effectively improve student behaviour. He acknowledged the need to examine whether these suspensions were proving beneficial to students and not just serving as punitive measures, explaining that other kinds of seemingly kinder sanctions, such as social service implemented in the last academic year, proved not to be a deterrent and did not eradicate the problems they were targeting previously. He further explained that CADI’s approach prioritises student safety, considering individual circumstances before deciding on sanctions. 

Sinha also stated that CADI has never encountered a scenario where a suspended student could not afford travel expenses to return home. Should such a situation arise, he noted that while financial assistance falls outside CADI’s direct purview, he believes the university would make the necessary accommodations. He also clarified that suspensions do not appear explicitly on a student's transcript, though their academic impact may be reflected in course grades. 

Replying to an anonymous question regarding why CADI sanctions appear harsher than those handed down by CASH and why NOCs are withheld in disciplinary cases, Sinha noted that he could not comment on CASH procedures, but defended CADI’s strict penalties as an essential deterrent. "Students need to feel they have something to lose, which deters them from committing a violation," he explained. The issue of stricter penalties under CADI compared to CASH was also raised during the 30th September solidarity march, held in conjunction with women’s safety protests at Delhi University and appears to be a general resentment amongst students.

Addressing concerns about transparency, Sinha said CADI would update existing policy documents and prepare a workflow document explaining the disciplinary process to students. He also maintained that the committee was making an effort to communicate more frequently with students and provide them with opportunities to present their side of the story, such as the verbal deposition. However, he did not provide a definitive timeline for when the documents would be released, noting that the process could take time.

[Edited by Antara Kulkarni, Ananya Mahnot and Avika Mantri.]