Students Threatened with POCSO and Suspension for Hugging in University — Know Your Legal Rights

One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.

Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.

Kavita Reddy and Sneha Iyer were both first-year students at a private engineering college in Nagpur. Around mid-February 2025, the two were waiting near the lift lobby of their hostel block when they briefly hugged each other. As the lift doors opened, two faculty members stepped out and witnessed the moment. What followed was swift and, frankly, disproportionate.

The faculty reported the incident to the students' respective mentors. Both students were summoned and subjected to a prolonged meeting lasting several hours. The mentors threatened to invoke POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act), charges of public display of affection, and every disciplinary and criminal angle they could think of — despite both students being 18 years of age and legal adults. Suspension for the entire semester and a mandatory parent summons were also placed on the table. The students were asked to appear again at noon the next day.

Panicked and unsure of their rights, the students' families approached Advocate Sudhir Rao. A local advocate they'd briefly consulted had no clear answer on whether POCSO could even apply to adults, or how to respond to the institutional threat. Advocate Sudhir Rao's office immediately issued a formal legal notice to the college administration citing the students' fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and made clear that invoking POCSO against adults over a consensual hug was not only legally untenable but potentially actionable as a false complaint under Section 248 BNS. The administration backed down. No FIR was filed, no suspension was executed, and the matter was resolved.

Advice in Such Cases

Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation to come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think.

Don't comply silently: If a university authority threatens criminal action or suspension without following due process, don't simply agree or sign any document. Any admission made under duress in such a meeting can complicate matters later.

Document everything immediately: Note the time, date, names of faculty present, exact words used during the meeting, and any written notices issued by the institution. Screenshots, audio recordings (where legally permissible), and written records are valuable. And here's the thing — what seems like a minor note scribbled on your phone the same evening can become critical evidence six months down the line.

Understand what POCSO actually covers: POCSO applies only to victims and accused who are below 18 years. Threatening adults with POCSO for a consensual hug is legally baseless. Knowing this distinction promptly changes the entire dynamic of such a confrontation.

Cases involving wrongful threats of criminal prosecution, institutional harassment, and fundamental rights violations require advocates who regularly handle matters at this intersection of constitutional law and criminal procedure. General practitioners are sometimes unfamiliar with the specific procedural steps to neutralise a false threat before it escalates into an FIR. Domain-specific experience here isn't a luxury. It's what gets results faster.

Applicable Sections of Law

This case sits at the intersection of constitutional rights and criminal law threats. The following provisions are directly relevant:

• Section 248 BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita): Punishes false information given with intent to cause a public servant to use lawful power to the injury of another person. Threatening to file a false POCSO complaint can attract this section.
• Section 351 BNS: Covers criminal intimidation — threatening to cause harm to reputation or person with intent to coerce.
• Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution: Guarantee freedom of expression and the right to personal liberty. Institutional action that disproportionately curtails these rights is constitutionally challengeable.
• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO): Applies strictly where the victim is under 18 years. Application to adults is legally impermissible and attempting to misuse it can itself attract penal consequences.

Punishment and Penalties

Make no mistake: misusing criminal statutes to intimidate students is not consequence-free for the persons doing the threatening. If a false complaint under POCSO is actually filed against an adult by a third party acting maliciously, the person filing such a complaint can face consequences under Section 248 BNS, which carries imprisonment that may extend to two years, a fine, or both. It's a cognizable and bailable offence. For criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS, punishment may extend to two years of imprisonment, a fine, or both — cognizable, bailable, and non-compoundable without court permission.

Jurisdiction — Where to File the Case

If a false FIR is actually registered, jurisdiction lies with the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JMFC) in the city where the college is located. For constitutional remedies such as a writ petition challenging wrongful suspension or institutional harassment, the High Court of the respective state holds jurisdiction. And here's the thing — if the administration proceeds with suspension without following their own published disciplinary procedure, a writ of mandamus before the High Court is a viable and often fast remedy. Territorial jurisdiction for any criminal complaint follows Section 173 BNSS, based on where the alleged act took place.

What if Police Refuse to File FIR?

If the students wish to file a complaint against the faculty or institution for criminal intimidation and the local police decline to register it, the following steps are available:

• Approach the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the district under Section 173(4) BNSS with a written complaint, requesting direction to register the FIR.
• File a private complaint directly before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, requesting the Magistrate to take cognizance and direct investigation.
• If both avenues are unresponsive, file a writ petition before the High Court seeking a direction to register the FIR — this is used in exceptional cases where there is clear inaction.
• Maintain documented proof of all refusals or non-responses at each stage before escalating.

Rights of the Accused

Now, before you act, know exactly what rights attach the moment an FIR is filed against you or anyone in a similar situation:

• Right against self-incrimination: Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, no person accused of an offence can be compelled to be a witness against themselves. Statements made under coercion in faculty offices are not admissible evidence.
• Right to legal representation: Article 22 of the Constitution guarantees the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of one's choice, at every stage.
• Right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours: Any arrest must be followed by production before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, under Section 58 BNSS.
• Right to know grounds of arrest and obtain FIR copy: The arrested person must be informed of the grounds immediately, and a copy of the FIR is available as of right under Section 173 BNSS.
• Right to remain silent: Students facing questioning — even informal questioning by faculty — are under no legal obligation to make self-incriminating statements.

Bail Provisions

Section 248 BNS (false information to public servant) and Section 351 BNS (criminal intimidation) are both bailable offences. Bail can be obtained at the police station itself if an FIR is registered and arrest follows. No court appearance is strictly required for initial bail. So the immediate threat of detention is limited. But if the police are reluctant for any reason, regular bail under Section 480 BNSS can be sought before the Magistrate promptly. Frankly, anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS is the smarter move — apply for it as a precaution if there's any genuine apprehension of arrest, particularly before any formal FIR is registered. Conditions typically include cooperation with investigation and not leaving the city without notice.

Quashing of FIR / Case

Quashing is a powerful remedy here. Under Section 528 BNSS, the High Court holds inherent powers to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding where the complaint is frivolous, doesn't disclose any prima facie offence, or is a clear abuse of the process of law. In a situation where POCSO is invoked against adults for a consensual hug, all three grounds are simultaneously available. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 laid down the categories where quashing is appropriate — and a false POCSO complaint against adults fits squarely within those categories. Once a High Court quashes such proceedings, the students are protected from further prosecution on the same facts.

If You Are the Victim

If you or someone you know is facing similar threats from an educational institution, here is what to do immediately:

• Don't attend any further meetings alone — have a parent, guardian, or lawyer accompany you or be reachable by phone during the meeting.
• Refuse to sign any admission of guilt, undertaking, or apology letter without having it reviewed by a lawyer first.
• File a formal written complaint with the university's Internal Complaints Committee or the Grievance Redressal Cell if threats are made without basis.
• If suspension proceedings are initiated, demand a copy of the show-cause notice in writing and respond through a lawyer within the stipulated time.
• If the matter involves gender-based discrimination or harassment, consider a complaint to the University Grants Commission (UGC) Grievance Portal.

Documents You Must Keep Ready

• Aadhaar card and college-issued identity card of both students (to establish age as 18+)
• Admission records showing date of birth and enrollment status
• Any written notice, memo, or email received from the college administration or faculty
• Notes or recordings (where permissible) of the meeting in which threats were made
• CCTV footage from the college lift lobby area, if obtainable through an application to the administration
• WhatsApp or other digital communications from mentors, faculty, or college authorities
• College's own disciplinary rules and code of conduct (published in prospectus or handbook)
• Witness details of any other students or staff who were present or aware of the threats

What Evidence Is Required?

• Age proof (primary): Aadhaar, birth certificate, or school leaving certificate confirming both students are 18 or above — this directly demolishes any POCSO applicability.
• CCTV footage (primary): Footage showing the nature of the interaction — a hug in a common area — is critical to establish that no sexual offence occurred.
• Written communications (primary): Emails, letters, WhatsApp messages from college authorities containing threats constitute direct evidence of criminal intimidation.
• Witness testimony (secondary): Other students or non-teaching staff present in the area who can corroborate what occurred and what was said.
• College handbook/rules (secondary): To demonstrate whether the disciplinary process being followed complies with the institution's own published procedures.
• Prior conduct record (secondary): Academic and disciplinary record of both students to show no prior misconduct, relevant to severity of any institutional action.

How the Police Behave in Such Cases

Local police often show initial reluctance to register an FIR in matters where a college administration approaches them with complaints against students over incidents like this — especially when both parties are adults and no actual sexual offence is disclosed. That said, institutional pressure or political connections can sometimes move a station officer to register a case despite the legal weakness. Police may also informally "counsel" students at the station without registering anything. This informal pressure can be just as coercive. Having legal representation present from the first interaction with police isn't optional — it's essential. Police are bound by Section 173 BNSS to register cognizable offences, but they're equally subject to accountability if they register a complaint they know is false.

Timeline of Legal Process

• Day 1-3: Legal notice issued to college administration; demand for withdrawal of threats and reinstatement of normal academic standing. Often resolves matters at this stage alone.
• Week 1-2: If FIR is filed, apply for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS before the Sessions Court — typically heard within a few days.
• Week 2-4: File quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS before the High Court if FIR is registered. High Courts in such cases may grant interim stay of proceedings within 2-4 weeks of first hearing.
• Month 1-3: Investigation by police, statement recording, final report to Magistrate. Given the weakness of evidence, police may file a closure report (B-summary).
• Month 3-6: Hearing of quashing petition; disposal possible within this range in straightforward cases.
• Parallel track: Writ petition before High Court against wrongful suspension, with prayer for status quo — can be heard on urgent basis within days.

How Long Will the Investigation Take?

Under Section 193 BNSS, police are required to complete investigation and file a charge sheet within 60 days for offences triable by a Magistrate. In practice, investigations in cases like this — where the underlying facts are straightforward and no serious offence is disclosed — tend to move toward closure relatively quickly. If the police find no cognizable offence after investigation, they'll file a closure report before the Magistrate. The Magistrate can accept it or direct further investigation. Don't assume the process will drag on indefinitely.