The Vice-Principal of a prestigious Kolkata law college has resigned after being gheraoed by students protesting a strict 75% attendance mandate for semester exams. The incident has sparked a debate over academic discipline versus administrative transparency.
- Vice-Principal Muhammadi Tarannum resigned after a night-long gherao by students.
- The conflict stemmed from a mandatory 75% attendance requirement for examination eligibility.
- Students allege irregularities in attendance tracking and sudden changes in class timings.
- The VP has called for a high-level probe into the college's administrative transparency.
In a dramatic turn of events at one of Kolkata's most reputed legal institutions, Muhammadi Tarannum, the Vice-Principal of Surendranath Law College, has tendered her resignation. While her official resignation letter cites "unavoidable family, health-related, and personal issues," Tarannum has publicly stated that she was effectively forced out of her position following an intense protest by a section of the student body.
The turmoil began when the college administration issued a circular mandating a 75% attendance threshold for students to be eligible to sit for their semester examinations, in accordance with Bar Council rules. A significant number of students failed to meet this criterion, leading to widespread panic and subsequent anger when they were barred from filling out their examination forms.
The situation escalated on Thursday night when students staged a gherao, trapping the Vice-Principal in her office. Tarannum alleged that she was denied food and water, and the lights were switched off during the ordeal. She further claimed that while six teachers were present initially, they were driven out, leaving her alone to face the pressure of the protesting students.
Why This Matters
BozokMedia analysis shows that this incident highlights a growing friction between rigid regulatory compliance (Bar Council norms) and the practical realities of student life. The shift in class timings to 6:00 AM—as alleged by students—suggests a disconnect between administrative scheduling and student accessibility, which can lead to systemic failures in attendance recording.
"The forced resignation of an academic administrator under student pressure sets a dangerous precedent for institutional autonomy and the rule of law within educational campuses."
The students' grievances extend beyond the 75% rule. They have alleged that the attendance roster was not maintained professionally, claiming that records were sometimes kept via WhatsApp or paper chits rather than official registers. This lack of transparency has fueled the argument that the attendance criterion was being applied arbitrarily.
Despite attempts by Governing Council chairman Kaustav Bagchi to mediate—including a proposal to allow students with a marginal shortfall to appear via self-declaration—no consensus was reached. Tarannum has now appealed to the Chief Minister and the Education Minister for a formal investigation into the college's attendance systems.
| Administration Stance | Student Allegations |
|---|---|
| 75% attendance is a mandatory Bar Council rule. | |
| Attendance records are inconsistent (WhatsApp/chits). | |
| Rules are applied uniformly for academic integrity. | |
| 6 AM class timings made attendance impossible for many. |
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: Why did the Vice-Principal resign?
While her letter mentioned personal reasons, she stated she was forced to resign after being gheraoed and pressured by students protesting attendance rules.
Q2: What were the students' primary complaints?
Students protested the 75% attendance requirement and alleged that the administration failed to maintain a transparent and fair attendance tracking system.
