We, the students, alumni, parents, and concerned members of the academic community associated with Symbiosis Law School (SLS), Nagpur, respectfully submit this representation to express our serious concern regarding certain recent developments on campus, the concerns raised by members of the student community, and the perceived lack of timely and transparent communication from the institutional administration.
We place these concerns before the University with the expectation that they will be examined objectively, fairly, and in accordance with applicable institutional policies and law. We are not seeking to prejudge any individual or determine the outcome of any inquiry.

Our primary concern is that allegations of a serious nature should be addressed through a transparent, impartial, and credible process, with appropriate safeguards for all persons involved.

1. Concerns Regarding Alleged Inappropriate and Religiously Sensitive Communications
Concerns have been raised regarding communications allegedly exchanged between Assistant Professor Ahmar Afaq and a female student, which have reportedly been perceived as inappropriate and religiously sensitive, purportedly indicating towards Conversion Grooming gangs and radical activities.
It is further understood that these communications subsequently became the subject of a confrontation on campus involving members of the student's family and the faculty member, followed by a formal complaint.
Given the nature of the allegations, the student community is seeking clarity regarding the steps taken by the University to ensure the safety and well-being of the concerned student, preserve relevant evidence, and initiate an appropriate institutional inquiry.
We respectfully request that the University clarify, to the extent legally and procedurally permissible, whether the matter has been referred to the appropriate internal mechanism and whether any other statutory or regulatory obligations have been assessed.

2. Concerns Regarding Favouritism and Exercise of Academic Authority
Students have also raised concerns regarding the manner in which certain positions of responsibility and institutional representation have allegedly been allocated, including roles associated with the Student Council and institutional bodies such as the International Cell to lure in students towards the alleged activities.

3. Consistency and Proportionality in Institutional Action
Questions have also arisen regarding the consistency of institutional responses to sensitive matters involving students and faculty.
Where disciplinary or precautionary action has been taken against students in matters involving serious investigations, members of the academic community reasonably expect comparable standards of procedural fairness, evidence preservation, and accountability to apply whenever concerns are raised regarding any member of the institution.
We therefore request that the University review whether its responses to different categories of complaints have been consistent with its policies and principles of natural justice, irrespective of the status or position of the individual concerned.

4. Preservation of Relevant Records and Digital Evidence
Given that some of the concerns relate to electronic communications and events occurring on campus, we respectfully request that all potentially relevant records be preserved in accordance with applicable law and University policy.
This may include, where legally permissible and relevant:
Electronic communications and associated records;
Records relating to Student Council and institutional appointments;
Relevant administrative correspondence;
Campus CCTV footage and other available security records; and
Any other material that may reasonably assist an impartial inquiry.
We further request that, where the circumstances warrant it, the University obtain appropriate independent technical or legal advice regarding the preservation and examination of such material.
If any allegation is found to potentially involve a matter requiring reporting to an appropriate statutory or law-enforcement authority, we expect the University to follow the applicable legal and institutional procedure.

5. Faculty Recruitment, Vetting, and Institutional Due Diligence
Concerns have additionally been raised regarding the recruitment, appointment, background verification, and institutional role of Mr. Saqib Rasool Bhat, who was reportedly associated with Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur, as a faculty member in International Law and was understood to have been serving during a probationary period.
It has also been represented to us that Mr. Bhat had a close professional association with Assistant Professor Ahmar Afaq. In view of the concerns separately raised regarding the conduct and institutional influence of Mr. Afaq, the nature and extent of such professional associations may reasonably warrant examination as part of a broader and impartial institutional review.
Concerns have further been raised regarding Mr. Bhat's previous academic and public activities, including allegations of involvement in forms of ideological or political activism that some members of the academic community consider inconsistent with the University's expectations of neutrality, inclusivity, and a responsible academic environment. There are also concerns that views or communications perceived by students as being hostile towards India or inconsistent with the University's institutional ethos may have been expressed or promoted within the academic environment.

6. Need for a Credible and Independent Inquiry
Considering the seriousness and sensitivity of the concerns raised, we believe that the credibility of any inquiry will depend upon its independence and perceived impartiality.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that the University consider constituting an inquiry mechanism that includes an appropriately qualified external member who is independent of the local institutional administration. Where considered appropriate, this could include a retired judicial officer, senior legal professional, academic expert, or another suitably qualified independent person.
We further request that the inquiry be conducted within a clearly defined and reasonable timeframe, with appropriate confidentiality and procedural safeguards for both complainants and persons against whom allegations have been made.

7. Review of Administrative Handling and Institutional Accountability
We also request a review of the manner in which previous and recent complaints or concerns have been received, recorded, escalated, and addressed by the relevant administrative authorities.
If the review identifies delays, procedural lapses, failures of escalation, or deficiencies in the handling of complaints, appropriate corrective and administrative measures should follow in accordance with University policy.
The objective should not be punitive for its own sake, but to ensure that similar concerns are handled promptly, consistently, and transparently in the future.

8. Protection of Students, Complainants, and Whistleblowers
We strongly request that the University provide an explicit assurance that no student, complainant, student representative, or other member of the academic community will face retaliation merely for raising a concern in good faith, participating in an inquiry, or expressing support for a lawful institutional representation.
Such protection should include safeguards against intimidation, discriminatory treatment, punitive academic action, arbitrary disciplinary proceedings, or any adverse treatment connected solely to participation in a legitimate complaint or inquiry.
At the same time, we recognise the importance of protecting the confidentiality, dignity, and due-process rights of every individual involved.
Our Requests to the University
In light of the above, we respectfully request the University to:
Ensure an impartial assessment of the allegations and take appropriate interim measures where necessary to protect the integrity of the inquiry and the interests of all concerned.
Constitute an independent and credible inquiry mechanism, preferably including an appropriately qualified external member, to examine the concerns objectively.
Establish a clear and reasonable timeline for the completion of the inquiry and communicate the procedural framework to the concerned stakeholders, subject to confidentiality requirements.
Preserve relevant physical and digital records in accordance with applicable law and institutional policy.
Review the handling of previous complaints and concerns and determine whether any administrative or procedural shortcomings occurred.
Review relevant appointment, recruitment, and vetting procedures to strengthen transparency, merit, and institutional due diligence.
Provide appropriate protection against retaliation to students, complainants, witnesses, and representatives participating in the process in good faith.
Communicate the steps being taken by the University so that students and other stakeholders are not left dependent on speculation, incomplete information, or unofficial accounts.

Our Purpose
This representation is made in the interest of student safety, institutional integrity, transparency, and confidence in due process.
We acknowledge that allegations are not findings of fact and that every individual is entitled to a fair and impartial process. At the same time, serious concerns raised by members of the academic community deserve to be acknowledged and addressed through a process that is demonstrably credible.
As an institution responsible for legal education, SLS Nagpur has a particularly important role in demonstrating the principles that its students are taught: fairness, accountability, natural justice, evidence-based decision-making, and respect for due process.
Symbiosis International (Deemed University) has built a distinguished legacy through its commitment to academic excellence, inclusivity, professional ethics, and nation-building. Over the years, the institution has served as a centre of learning that has brought together students from diverse backgrounds and contributed meaningfully to India's educational and professional landscape. In many ways, Symbiosis has aspired to uphold the spirit of “Nalanda”, a place where knowledge, diversity, debate, and learning transcend boundaries.
It is precisely because of this legacy that the concerns raised above are deeply troubling to us as members of the wider Symbiosis family. If allegations of misconduct, favouritism, inadequate institutional oversight, or activities inconsistent with the University's values are allowed to remain unresolved, they risk undermining the trust, credibility, and reputation that Symbiosis has built over decades.

Our intention is not to target individuals or prejudge any inquiry. Our objective is to protect the institution. We seek a transparent, impartial, and conclusive examination of these concerns, followed by appropriate corrective measures wherever warranted.
We therefore appeal to the leadership of SIU to address these matters decisively and establish a definite, credible, and lasting institutional resolution, so that students, parents, alumni, faculty, and the wider Symbiosis community can continue to place their trust in the institution and its values.
We stand for the preservation of what SLS represents.

We therefore urge the leadership of Symbiosis International (Deemed University) to treat these concerns with the seriousness they warrant, undertake an objective review, and communicate the appropriate institutional steps to the community within the limits imposed by confidentiality and applicable law.
Our request is ultimately simple: a safe academic environment, a fair process, consistent standards of accountability, and confidence that legitimate concerns will be heard and addressed without fear or favour.
We respectfully request the University's considered response and appropriate action.

Sincerely,
Students, Alumni, Parents, and Concerned Members of the Academic Community
Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
Symbiosis International (Deemed University)