PSIT, one of Kanpur’s prominent engineering and management institutions, is facing a dispute between students and the college administration over a Rs 20,000 security deposit, attendance regulations and administrative decisions. The issue escalated into student protests, leading to tension on the campus and widespread discussion on social media.
According to students, the college administration pressured them to deposit a Rs 20,000 security amount. Students alleged that the amount was demanded suddenly and enforced strictly, creating an additional financial burden on those from economically weaker backgrounds. Several students said they were already facing pressure due to tuition fees, hostel charges and other academic expenses.
Students participating in the protest said the college did not provide clear information regarding the security deposit. Some alleged that they were warned they could be barred from examinations, classes and other academic activities if the amount was not paid. Students said dissatisfaction over the issue gradually increased, prompting many to openly oppose the administration.
The situation intensified when students moved outside the campus and began protesting on the streets. Demonstrators raised slogans against the administration and demanded that the decisions be withdrawn. Protesters alleged that the institution was creating pressure on students through strict rules rather than focusing on academics. A large number of students participated in the protest, leading to tension in the area for some time.
Students also raised objections to the mandatory 90 percent attendance requirement. They alleged that the institution already enforced strict attendance rules and had now linked the security deposit issue with attendance compliance. According to students, those falling below 90 percent attendance were threatened with disciplinary action. Several students described the policy as impractical, stating that illness, family issues and other circumstances sometimes force students to miss classes, while the college allegedly does not provide relief in such situations.
The dispute deepened after the administration initiated action against some students involved in the protest. According to available information, six students were expelled from the college. The decision further intensified student anger. Protesters said expressing concerns should not be treated as an offence and alleged that the administration was attempting to suppress students instead of addressing their grievances.
Several students also came forward in support of those expelled. Posts and videos related to the matter continued circulating on social media. Some students alleged that excessive strictness had been enforced on the campus for a long time in the name of discipline. Some parents also expressed concern, stating that educational institutions should provide an environment where students can express their views openly rather than study under fear and pressure.
The college administration presented a different position on the issue. According to the administration, rules are necessary to maintain discipline and academic standards within the institution. The college stated that the security deposit and attendance requirements are part of institutional policy and are communicated to students in advance. The administration also indicated that disciplinary action was taken because some students engaged in indiscipline during the protest.
Despite the administration’s response, students said their concerns remained unresolved. Several students stated that the matter would not have escalated if the administration had initiated discussions earlier and considered the financial and practical difficulties faced by students. Some students also alleged that there is no effective grievance redressal mechanism in the college, causing smaller issues to develop into larger disputes.
The issue has expanded beyond a single institution and has triggered debate over rising fees, strict regulations and increasing pressure on students in private educational institutions. Education experts stated that while discipline is necessary, institutions should also consider students’ mental condition, financial circumstances and practical difficulties. They said strict enforcement of rules alone does not necessarily improve the educational environment and can increase stress and dissatisfaction.
Students maintained that they are not opposing education but are protesting against rules they believe are causing mental and financial distress. They said the college should increase dialogue with students and seek their views before implementing new decisions.
Attention is now focused on how the college administration and students resolve the dispute. Students continue to demand the reinstatement of the expelled students and relaxation in the disputed rules, while the campus atmosphere remains tense.
