Recent news about the Donald Trump administration’s move on enhanced screening, including “social media vetting” of foreign students, has caused a stir. Experts say that the free speech rights of U.S. citizens are protected by the First Amendment to their Constitution. Though the speech of immigrants is protected as well, there is no explicit bar on deportation, a lacuna used by the Trump administration.
The social media vetting debate has left students in India, many of whom aspire to go to the U.S. for higher studies, more conscious about the consequences of their social media activities. Though the scale, consequences, and the level of scrutiny are heightened with the Trump administration’s move, social media vetting is not a new issue for Indian students. Typical social media policies of Indian education institutions are restrictive and explicitly bar several aspects.
U.S. universities, too, have for a while had guidelines on social media usage by students and staff. Indian educational institutes, too, have drafted policies to keep in check the social media activities of students. The difference, though, is that at the university level in the U.S., these policies have been intended more towards students’ safety from phishing scams, being misconstrued online, and university brand communications. The guidelines recognise the right of students to express their opinions freely. They, however, do encourage students to post a disclaimer that these views are personal and do not represent the university. For instance, Harvard Business School’s guidelines specify that it is not the university’s role to police or punish the online expression of individual members of the community, unless it violates existing University or School policy.
In India, though, the picture is different. Institutes like Central University of Tamil Nadu (CUTN), Manipal Institute of Higher Education (MAHE), IIT Madras, KIIT, and NIFT are among the many with social media policies. The social media policies for IIT Madras and MAHE were implemented in 2022. At least on paper, these policies are more scrutinising of students if compared to the guidelines of U.S. universities. Typically they also mention punishments for any offences caused.
What policies of Indian educational institutions say
Most policies note that future employers and industry contacts may view social media profiles when hiring to get an idea of a candidate’s character, personality, or employability. They ask students to be cautious in order not to affect their chances of employability.
The policies also say that students can’t claim to speak on behalf of the institution or use its logo without permission. The policies caution against cyberbullying and privacy violations of others, sharing of inappropriate material, including images, that is, or may be perceived to be threatening, harassing, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, indecent, defamatory, or hostile towards any individual, group, or entity.
The general guidelines of IIT Madras, signed in 2022, say, “Civil and criminal laws apply to content posted online. Civil claims that could be brought include actions for defamation, harassment, breach of intellectual property rights, fraudulent misrepresentation, or breach of confidence. Criminal offences that could occur online include harassment, stalking, hate crimes, coercive or controlling behaviour, disclosing intimate images without consent, blackmail, malicious communications, and terrorism offences. Cyber laws as are applicable in the Indian Territory will apply to the contents posted online.”
Some common clauses in the policy of MAHE, IIT Madras, and CUTN say putting out confidential information (which may include research not yet in the public domain, information about fellow students or staff, or personal matters, non-public or not yet approved documents or information) is considered unacceptable.
It is also deemed unacceptable to share details of complaints/potential complaints and/or legal proceedings/potential legal proceedings involving the University. Anything which may bring the University into disrepute or compromise the safety or reputation of colleagues, former colleagues, students, staff, and those connected with the University.
About content maligning Indian institutes
NIFT says any content maligning NIFT, its policies, and employees will be viewed adversely, inviting disciplinary action and inter alia, penalties, debarment from sitting the examination, campus placements, etc. IIT Madras says any content inappropriately maligning the institute, its policies, employees, and students should be avoided.
KIIT says, no one can use social media ports/ platforms for raising and escalating concerns relating to the university, the courses, admissions, examinations, research, including the centres of study/ research, constituent schools/ colleges, councils/ committees/ management bodies of the university and/or any personnel of the university.
A former student from a chain of colleges in Bangalore recalls an incident from ten years ago. He says, “There was a bus strike in Bangalore due to political problems. All colleges and schools declared a holiday because of the bus strike. Our college, however, continued classes. Though most students were from the hostel, one student had to commute from a faraway locality. She used to voice of a youth-based platform to raise her concerns. She was suspended.”
The student is not aware whether this happened due to any policy in place or if it was arbitrary. “I am sure most of us didn’t even know if there was a policy. If there were, we wouldn’t have known. A professor who questioned this was apparently shown the door. Students tried to protest against this, but due to a lack of clarity among students and fear of professors, it didn’t go beyond a 20-minute gathering”, he said.
Punishment
CUTN has listed that disciplinary action will be taken for violations of the social media policy. Minor punishment includes oral reprimand, written reprimand, and written warning. These are to caution the student about the misconduct. Major penalties include restrictions or suspension of privileges such as hostel access, use of lab, library, cafeteria, sports facilities, membership in clubs, placement activities, and internships or academic associations. A fine of a minimum of ₹5,000 may be levied along with compensation for damage, and for multiple violations, the panel may recommend more severe actions.
Major penalties also include disciplinary probation, which is a written notification that further violations may lead to suspension. Suspension involves withdrawal from courses, forfeiture of fees, and prohibition from visiting university premises without written approval. It may also involve a course or semester drop, or rustication for a specified period. Expulsion results in forfeiture of all rights and degrees not yet conferred, loss of the right to study, and fees. Students can only visit the university premises with written permission from the Disciplinary Committee.
The universities appoint an appellate authority for students who feel aggrieved by the punishment. Students from CUTN and MAHE can appeal to the vice-chancellor, whereas IIT Madras has appointed the Director of the institute for the purpose.
What guidelines of some U.S. universities say
Guidelines of U.S. universities usually make students and staff aware that, though these platforms offer a private mode, privacy doesn’t really exist on social media. The Social Media Policy and Guidelines of the University of Michigan apply to all social media platforms approved by the university for brand communications and any emerging platforms. While they mention that these guidelines are not intended to govern the personal social media accounts of faculty, staff, or students, a section does dwell upon personal social media usage.
The University of Michigan encourages students not to reveal confidential information about the university or its members. They also ask not to misuse the U-M brand, not to use the University of Michigan identity, such as the name, logo, and brand colors, for any personal purposes. It further states, “If you identify yourself on your social media channels as a University of Michigan faculty or staff member, it is necessary to make sure that you post a disclaimer that your views are your own and you are not representing the university in your posts”.
The Harvard Business School has guidelines for social media staff and faculty. Their disclaimer says, “We encourage you to review the following guidance—as a form of best practice; for your safety and well-being; to be aware of (and to avoid where appropriate) the potential for confusion between personal and professional viewpoints and to protect Harvard Business School and its reputation and brand.”
While the university encourages students and staff to reach out to university authorities If they see something concerning on social media related to the HBS community, but also notes that it is not HBS’s role to police or punish the online expression of individual members of the community, unless it violates existing University or School policy.
Harvard University’s website displays some social media guidance notes. They say, “Your viewpoints are your own; you should be clear, if necessary, that you are speaking in an individual capacity and not on behalf of Harvard Business School or Harvard University. This is especially true if your relationship with HBS or Harvard is generally known and/or your role at HBS positions you to frame or state positions on behalf of the School”.
Apart from that the university lists personal safety guidelines: Avoid posting personal identifying information about yourself and others, including: Real-time location information, Phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses, or other identifying information for you and your family/loved ones; Information that is often used to provide password hints or reset information
The free speech debate
Asif Ali Zaidi, Advocate and Researcher, said, “In the United States, the speech of the citizens is protected by the First Amendment. It protects their speech in absolute terms. However, the same is not extended to the immigrants, and the recent deportations of the pro-Palestinian students and activists are an example of how the law is not equal for all. Though the US Supreme Court protects the speech of immigrants, it does not say anything about deportations, and therefore, the Trump administration has used this lacuna.
Mr. Zaidi said, “In India, the right to free speech is extended to Citizens under Article 19 1 (a) of the Constitution. However, the same may be curtailed on the broad grounds mentioned under 19 (2), such as sovereignty, integrity of India, friendly relations with foreign States, morality, decency, etc. The free speech can also be curtailed under the newly enforced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Section 152), which provides for sedition without mentioning it.”
Shyam Gopal, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India, said, Free speech rights aren’t inherently more sacrosanct for students than for others. In the US, the First Amendment protects most speech and precedents like Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) affirm students’ rights to free speech unless it substantially disrupts the learning environment. In India, free speech rights, including for students, are governed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression but allows “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2) for reasons like public order, decency, morality, security of the state, or incitement to violence. Campus regulations often restrict protests or speeches that could disrupt academic functioning or offend public sentiments. Courts have upheld such restrictions, prioritizing public order, for example, see Kanhaiya Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi (2016).
Legal consequences
While some academicians say students need to be educated about the consequences of their actions on social media and are not mature enough, others, however, say institutional control can hamper the right to free speech. Parag Kalkar, Pro Vice-Chancellor, SPPU, says, “As a university professor, I find that while students are digitally native, their understanding of the full professional consequences of their online posts is often incomplete. They frequently struggle to connect their casual online personas with their emerging professional identities, underestimating how easily seemingly innocuous content can be misinterpreted, decontextualised, or permanently accessed by future employers and institutions”.
Mr. Kalkar says, “This disconnect stems from a lack of critical reflection on impulsive posts, a reliance on the false security of privacy settings, and an evolving grasp of what constitutes professional conduct in a digital age where online behavior is an extension of one’s professional brand. Therefore, we must consistently educate them on the internet’s permanence, audience awareness, and the lasting impact their digital footprint has on their career trajectory”.
Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner KS Legal & Associates, says “Institutional social media policies, such as those enforced by MAHE, IIT Madras, CUTN, and NIFT, often clash with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, creating a fraught balance where institutional control can suppress legitimate expression through overly broad or vague restrictions”.
Ms. Chandwani, says, “These policies, which prohibit content that maligns the institution, discloses confidential information, or causes disrepute, draw legitimacy from Article 19(2)’s exceptions for defamation, public order, or privacy but risk overreach by using ambiguous terms like “disrepute,” which invite arbitrary enforcement and chill dissent. Students breaching these policies face civil liabilities, such as defamation claims under IPC Section 499 or tortious actions for breach of confidence, potentially leading to damages or injunctions, while criminal liabilities under IPC Sections 354A (harassment), 354C (voyeurism), 507 (criminal intimidation), or IT Act Section 66E (disclosing private images) carry penalties including fines and imprisonment”.
“Students can challenge such restrictions or disciplinary actions through writ petitions under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash overbroad policies or actions, or pursue internal grievance mechanisms and civil remedies under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to protect their right to critique institutional practices without facing disproportionate retribution”, said Ms. Chandwani.
Remove
SEE ALL