Registrar Revokes Cross-Access Rights Without Due Process, Blindsiding Students and CADI Reps

In an unprecedented move, Ashoka University's Registrar’s Office has revoked the cross-access privileges of two fourth year students (ASP’25) — a decision that has sparked serious concerns about procedural transparency, administrative overreach, and student rights. Communicated via email without prior notice or consultation, the action has raised questions about the lack of student representation and the abrupt shift in disciplinary handling.

Under Ashoka’s Campus Residence Life Policy, students are allowed to move between all genders’ residence halls between 8:00 AM and 12:30 AM, with mandatory digital sign-in and sign-out. Breaches of this policy historically led to infractions processed by the Office of Student Affairs (OSA), usually resulting in warnings or meetings with the residence hall warden. Escalations to the Registrar’s Office were rare, and harsher punishments were unheard of.

In this instance, however, the Registrar has unilaterally revoked the cross-access privileges of students, bypassing the Committee Against Disciplinary Infractions (CADI)—the university body mandated to oversee disciplinary actions, involving student, faculty, and staff representatives. This marks a significant departure from established procedures.

Administrative Silence

Despite multiple attempts by The Edict to seek clarification—including a formal email to the Registrar, the Office of Student Affairs, Residence Life, and relevant administrative officials—the university administration has remained unresponsive at the time of publication. The lack of any official response has further deepened concerns over administrative opacity and accountability in handling student disciplinary matters.

Students Speak Out

For one of the affected students (ASP’25), who wished to remain anonymous, the decision came as a shock. The student, who had accumulated around 75 cross-access infractions over their time at Ashoka, received an email on Sunday notifying them that their cross-access rights were revoked.

“When I tried signing into the boys' residence hall on Monday, it showed a warning saying that I was not allowed to visit this residence hall,” the student shared. “I spoke to the Assistant Registrar, and they told me that I was the first student where this revocation was being implemented.”

Additionally, they expressed frustration over the unpredictability of rule changes: “ResLife and the Assistant Registrar both said that new policies come up every day and we can't do anything about it. My only concern is that these new policies should be publicised before they are implemented.”

CADI Raises Alarm

Karandeep Gill (UG’26), a Student Representative and Member of the Committee Against Disciplinary Infractions (CADI), raised concerns about the lack of student consultation in the Registrar’s decision. Since cross-access policy violations fall within CADI’s jurisdiction, disciplinary proceedings should involve student, faculty, and staff representatives—as is mandated for all other kinds of disciplinary infractions.

“We reached out to all CADI members as of yesterday evening and requested that this case, this entire action of the registrar, be taken into deliberation. OSA processed all cases of cross-access infractions to decrease CADI’s workload. It has not been an issue until now because they only gave warnings to the students and never awarded any harsher punishment. But now that they are, student reps must be involved in the process,” Gill said. “The decisions the registrar has made should be re-evaluated by the committee.”

Gill further shared that CADI student members have proposed setting up a subcommittee to formalise acceptable disciplinary actions for cross-access violations. “We’ve argued that revocation of access should not be one of the options. There are better ways to reinforce the policy. The revocation should not even be on the table,” Gill explained.

A Troubling Precedent

The decision to revoke cross-access rights, according to the student affected, has also raised issues of fairness. The student acknowledged their previous infractions but felt the severity of the punishment was disproportionate. “I understand that I’ve had violations, but there was no conversation. No one asked me for an explanation. I just got the verdict, and now I can’t even go into the residence hall of the opposite gender,” the student explained.

Although university officials have indicated that no formal new policy regarding cross-access has been issued, the Registrar’s unilateral action sets a troubling precedent—one where punishments may be decided without due process, transparency, or student involvement.

For many, it raises fears that the erosion of procedural safeguards could be normalised, fundamentally altering the relationship between students and the administration at Ashoka University.

The writer is Staff Writer, News, AY 2024-25.

(Edited by Keerthana Panchanathan)