OVER THE LAST THREE DAYS, students at Tamil Nadu National Law University (‘TNNLU’), based in Tiruchirapalli, have issued a public statement and organised a protest condemning remarks made by Vice Chancellor Prof. (Dr.) V. Nagaraj, in which he stated that female students wearing shorts "invites sexual harassment" and constitutes a "distraction" even for faculty members.
According to the students, the comments were made during an official Class Representatives Meeting held on April 15, 2026 in the presence of the Registrar, the Deans, the Faculty (Including the Chief Warden of the Women’s Hostel and the Coordinator of Legal Center for Women’s Welfare) and the Class Representatives.
The student community has unequivocally rejected these statements, asserting that, “the Vice Chancellor's statements across two institutions signals not an isolated lapse in judgment, but a pattern of institutional conduct that normalises harassment and burdens its victims.”
Even as students have continued to protest, highlighting the absence of a formal student council in the law school to negotiate with the administration, it has also been alleged that the administration has attempted to pressure students by calling their parents to disperse the protest.
A history of misogynist remarks
This is not the first time Prof. (Dr.) V. Nagaraj has faced allegations of making such remarks. Prior to his appointment as Vice Chancellor of TNNLU, he served as a Professor of Law and ADR Chair Professor at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, (‘NLSIU’), during which, he was accused of singling out a third-year LL.B. student for wearing shorts to class and of making sexually coloured remarks when she objected to his comments on her attire.
In protest, the entire third-year LL.B. class had attended his lecture wearing shorts and wrote to the Vice Chancellor, faculty, the exam department, and the student body demanding an apology. No apology had been issued at that time.
Responding to those allegations at the time, Prof. Nagaraj had stated, “Nothing like [what is described in the statement] happened. Students are making false and baseless allegations. It is for the university authorities to examine this incident. This is the first time that students have made such a statement [whereas] I have been teaching for 27 years.”
However, similar allegations have surfaced once again, this time at a different institution. In the said class representatives meeting, the Vice Chancellor also, purportedly, expressed that he was “very proud” of having made similar remarks in a previous controversy at NLSIU, and did not offer any retraction or clarification.
Speaking to The Leaflet, the TNNLU’s Registrar, Prof. (Dr.) Balakrishnan, stated that the Vice Chancellor’s remarks were not directed at students but were made in reference to an earlier incident at NLSIU, as part of a broader discussion on institutional development and academic standards.
“All these things were told to the students in relation to the NLSIU Bengaluru incident, because he was a professor there. They started that institution from scratch and that's the way they have developed that institution to a number one institution in India,” he stated, “And just like that, we have to develop this institution also. He was telling a lot of things, how they have developed that institution and he was explaining one such incident where it happened there in NLSIU Bengaluru. In fact, he never referred to our students at all.”
Balakrishnan even suggested that students may have misunderstood the Vice Chancellor’s remark owing to language, “He was speaking in Tamil. Because he is not a Tamilian and he rarely speaks in Tamil, that’s why probably I think they [the students] misunderstood. He also stated that the incident had been “blown out of proportion."
Students, however, have pushed back against this version of events. One student, speaking anonymously, stated that the Vice Chancellor did not merely recount the earlier NLSIU incident but invoked it to justify his stance. “He made the remark and then added that a similar incident had happened in Bangalore, and that he stood his ground there as well,” the student explained, alleging that the administration was now attempting to shift blame and minimise the issue.
Administration called parents of protesting students
Amid escalating tensions, around three hundred students gathered in protest outside the administrative block at TNNLU for the first time on April 16, demanding a retraction of the statement, a public apology, and the establishment of a student council, which the university currently lacks.
One student recounted that the Vice Chancellor initially refused to appear, with faculty conveying that he would not address the gathering as he had “lost trust” of the students, and that his earlier remarks were made as a “fatherly figure.” Students, however, continued the protest and refused to disperse.
The Vice Chancellor eventually addressed the gathering briefly. “You cannot cross-examine me,” he said, as recounted by the student, and he also added that his remarks were intended in the context of increasing the university’s reputation through “decent” clothing. He further added, as per the student, “I have no obligation to answer the student community. If you want, take legal action; I will answer the authority,” before leaving.
Despite a campus curfew of 10 p.m., students remained gathered until approximately 6 A.M. on the morning of April 17. “The maximum they will do is issue a show-cause notice; we will show them the cause,” a student told The Leaflet. At least three students confirmed that calls were made to the parents of protesting students warning of consequences for remaining outside beyond curfew hours.
While some parents were supportive, others seemed alarmed by communication from the administration. “Some parents got scared, and around ten students had to leave the protest because of that pressure,” one of the students said. The Registrar did not contend that parents were called, and simply stated to The Leaflet that informing parents of students absent after the 10 p.m. curfew is standard hostel protocol.
The student also stated that the administration did not engage with them during the protest. “We were waiting outside past curfew, but no faculty member came to ask why we were protesting or to speak to us,”they recounted.
Speaking to The Leaflet, the Registrar stated that the Vice Chancellor had attempted to address the protesting students but was unable to do so as they were “agitated” and unwilling to hear him out.
All Class Representatives resign
Protests continued on April 17, with students gathering again in anticipation of a direct engagement with the Vice Chancellor. Students maintain that representatives from all batches, who were also physically present at the April 15 meeting, resigned yesterday afternoon collectively in protest, alleging that they were being repeatedly accused of misrepresenting events.
Yesterday, the Undergraduate Dean told students that the Vice Chancellor was unwilling to address the gathering or take questions, describing the situation as a “cross-examination.” Instead, students were asked to submit a written document outlining their concerns, to which a written response would be provided later that evening. Students agreed to this proposal.
However, shortly thereafter, the Vice Chancellor emerged, accompanied by the Registrar and faculty members. According to students present, rather than addressing their concerns, he accused them of not allowing him to speak the previous day and reiterated that he was not obligated to answer to the student body, stating that he was accountable only to higher authorities.
He further noted that, with the resignation of Class Representatives, there was no formal student body to engage with. The Vice Chancellor stated that he would reply in writing “when it is ready,” adding that there was “no time limit,” only a “reasonable time limit.”
Since this contradicted earlier assurances by the Undergraduate Dean that a response would be issued the same day, students rejected the lack of a clear timeline, stating that they would continue their protest until their concerns were addressed. “We will be right here every day,” a student said.
The Vice Chancellor concluded by reiterating that he was “not here for arguments, nor rowdyism, nor cross-examinations,” before leaving the gathering.
The standoff between students and the administration remains unresolved.
‘No Student Council; Compliance with POSH Act’: Broader institutional concerns
Among other demands, students are calling for the establishment of a Student Council, which the university currently lacks. An alumnus of TNNLU told The Leaflet that the Vice Chancellor on several occasions declined to meet the wider student body during protests, choosing instead to engage only with Class Representatives in closed settings. A current student explained that despite promises from the Vice Chancellor that meetings with the student community would happen frequently, that has not happened. According to one other current student, students have been facing significant delays in approvals, attributing them to the Vice Chancellor’s frequent absence from campus. They have pointed out that the demand for a Student Council has been pending for nearly two years. “They keep postponing meetings. At best, we get one or two effective meetings per semester,” the student noted.
Concerns regarding the university not having an approved policy in compliance with the PoSH Act have also been raised.
The alumnus of TNNLU told The Leaflet that under the previous Vice Chancellor, students had drafted and successfully pushed for a more inclusive and expansive sexual harassment policy. The process, they said, took over a year and involved multiple rounds of review before it was formally adopted. However, following the appointment of the current Vice Chancellor and a new Registrar, the policy was removed from the university’s website without any official notice. “We only found out through the person handling IT,” they said.
However, the Registrar maintained that the university has had a functioning Internal Complaints Committee (‘ICC’) since 2013 and complies with statutory requirements. He also confirmed that a draft constitution for a student council has been submitted and would be reviewed after the upcoming convocation.
The student community has formally demanded a public retraction and apology, the initiation of an institutional inquiry, and a clear affirmation that clothing does not contribute to sexual harassment. Their statement also calls upon other National Law Universities and members of the legal fraternity to stand in solidarity.
The Registrar told The Leaflet that after the Vice Chancellor meets the Chancellor, the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari then a formal clarification may be expected.
In the midst of it all, there's a certain irony in how a remark about distraction has managed to distract from itself so effectively. Between shifting explanations of context, timing, and intent, and claims of exaggeration, the conversation has shifted everywhere except toward the grave magnitude of what was actually said.
The Leaflet reached out to the Vice Chancellor V. Nagaraj for comment. However, no response had been received as of the publication of this story.