Naseeruddin Shah backs SRFTI students as campus disciplinary action raises questions over protest rights

Actor Naseeruddin Shah has come out in support of students protesting at Kolkata’s Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI), accusing the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of trying to frighten aspiring filmmakers who have demanded accountability from their administration. His video message, circulated on 24 October 2026, has brought wider attention to a dispute involving campus clashes, disciplinary notices, the suspension of classes and orders to leave student hostels.

What the students are protesting about

The dispute follows confrontations involving students and outside groups on 27 September and 4 October. Reporting on the first incident describes a clash during an event involving the Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat, an RSS-affiliated organisation. Students have alleged attacks by outsiders and inadequate protection. A further confrontation occurred on 4 October when Bangiya Hindu Jagaran Mancha members gathered outside the institute and some reportedly attempted to force entry. Accounts of responsibility for the confrontations are disputed.

Students began a sit-in outside vice-chancellor Santosh Ajmera’s office on 12 October and demanded his resignation and action over campus security. The protest continued as disciplinary proceedings and a suspension of academic activity deepened the conflict.

What is documented, and what remains disputed

There is independent reporting that SRFTI served show-cause notices on students, including over allegations concerning a security officer and earlier damage to institute property. A show-cause notice asks someone to explain alleged misconduct; it is not itself proof that the allegation is true. The institute’s 16 October direction suspended regular academic activities in its film and electronic and digital media wings until 13 November and required students to vacate the campus, including hostels, within 24 hours.

SRFTI has defended disciplinary proceedings as a response to alleged vandalism, occupation of the vice-chancellor’s office, intimidation and other breaches of campus rules. It says the recommendations followed consideration by institutional officials and a fact-finding committee, and that peaceful protest remains permitted. These are the administration’s allegations and explanations, not independently established findings of guilt against particular students.

Students, meanwhile, say the notices and restrictions have been used to put pressure on them rather than address their safety demands. Reports also describe disruptions to water and mess services during the agitation. The existence of disciplinary measures and hostel directions is much better supported than the assertion that the BJP ordered them. Publicly available material examined for this report does not independently establish Shah’s allegations of surveillance, threats or a BJP-directed vendetta.

Shah’s intervention and the wider question

In his roughly 87-second message, Shah described the students as future filmmakers and urged citizens to support their demands. He said he believed political retaliation and efforts to influence or frighten young filmmakers lay behind the treatment of protesters. Those statements are his political assessment, not a verified finding about the party’s involvement.

The key question is whether the institute has applied a fair and proportionate process to alleged misconduct while protecting students’ ability to raise complaints about violence and safety. Serious allegations of vandalism or intimidation deserve an impartial investigation; so do complaints that protesters were attacked or singled out for punishment. A blanket restriction on campus residence and learning can impose serious costs on students, and should be supported by clear reasons, reasonable alternatives, an opportunity to challenge decisions and safeguards against retaliation. Treating peaceful dissent as misconduct would be unjust, while evidence of violence or damage cannot simply be ignored because it occurred during a protest.

As of 26 October, the strongest supported conclusion is that an unresolved security and accountability dispute at SRFTI has escalated into documented disciplinary and campus-access restrictions, drawing Shah’s public criticism. Responsibility for each clash, the fairness of disciplinary decisions and any direct political direction still require stronger evidence. The students’ safety complaints and the administration’s misconduct allegations both warrant transparent, individual examination rather than guilt by association.