Students Protest at Mohan Babu University, Supreme Court Rules on Old Case

Students are protesting at Mohan Babu University in Andhra Pradesh. They say the university took too much money and scared students. In a separate matter, the Supreme Court has cancelled old police cases against actor Mohan Babu and his son.
By Newsroom | Education, Legal |

Concerns have surfaced regarding Mohan Babu University, a private institution in Andhra Pradesh. Student groups, particularly the Student Federation of India (SFI), have raised serious allegations, including financial impropriety and student intimidation. These accusations have led to demands for government intervention and have resulted in legal actions, including a Supreme Court ruling that overturned a previous High Court decision.

AP High Court Hears Mohan Babu’s Quash Plea In SFI Abduction Case - 1

Background of the Case

The current situation stems from several events and legal proceedings:

AP High Court Hears Mohan Babu’s Quash Plea In SFI Abduction Case - 2

  • Allegations of Financial Irregularities: The SFI has accused Mohan Babu University of collecting substantial sums of money from students under various fee heads, which they claim are illegal. Reports suggest a figure of ₹26.17 crore collected between 2022 and 2024 for career development, placement, and hostel fees. The SFI states that these fees were collected even from students who did not utilize hostel facilities or placement services.

  • Court Directives and Violations: A committee formed by the Higher Education Council examined the university's practices. Following this, the High Court reportedly directed the university to refund illegally collected fees and imposed a ₹15 lakh fine. SFI leaders claim the university has defied these orders by attempting to collect an additional ₹40,000 per student this academic year.

  • Protests and Counter-Allegations: Student organizations have been holding protests. Some reports indicate that student leaders were allegedly attacked and kidnapped. This has led to demands for the arrest of Mohan Babu and his son, Manchu Vishnu, by various student and political bodies, including CITU and CPM. Counter-cases have also been filed against SFI leaders.

  • Supreme Court Intervention: In separate but related legal matters, the Supreme Court has intervened. On July 31, 2025, the apex court quashed First Information Reports (FIRs) against Mohan Babu and his son. These FIRs were reportedly linked to a 2019 protest concerning student fee reimbursements and were filed under circumstances involving the Model Code of Conduct for elections. The Supreme Court's decision indicated that the FIRs did not disclose any acts causing public injury or interference with public rights. The High Court had previously refused to quash these FIRs, suggesting that the allegations warranted a trial.

Key Actors and Entities

  • Mohan Babu University: A private university facing allegations of financial misconduct and student intimidation.

  • Student Federation of India (SFI): A prominent student organization leading protests and making accusations against the university.

  • Mohan Babu: An actor and figure associated with the university, facing legal challenges and demands for his arrest.

  • Manchu Vishnu: Son of Mohan Babu, also implicated in the legal proceedings and demands for arrest.

  • Andhra Pradesh High Court: Previously refused to quash FIRs against Mohan Babu and his son, but later directed the university to refund fees.

  • Supreme Court of India: Quashed FIRs against Mohan Babu and his son, citing lack of disclosure of illegal acts.

Evidence Presented

  • Financial Records Allegations: SFI claims ₹26.17 crore was collected illegally by Mohan Babu University between 2022 and 2024.

  • Court Orders: The High Court reportedly directed fee refunds and imposed a ₹15 lakh fine.

  • Supreme Court Rulings: Judgments dated July 31, 2025, quashed FIRs against Mohan Babu and Manchu Vishnu. The court's reasoning focused on the lack of evidence of acts causing public injury or interference with public rights in the original FIRs.

  • Statements from Student/Political Bodies: Leaders from SFI, CITU, CPM, CPI, and CPI(ML) have issued statements condemning alleged university actions and demanding arrests.

Conflicting Claims on University Practices

SFI's Position:

  • Accusations of "large-scale financial irregularities."

  • Claims of "violation of court orders."

  • Allegations of a "culture of intimidation," including the "kidnapping of student leaders."

  • University is attempting to collect additional fees against court directives.

  • "₹26.17 crore" collected illegally from students.

Mohan Babu University's (Implied) Position (based on legal filings and Supreme Court observations):

  • The FIRs related to the 2019 protest did not disclose any "act committed or illegal commission that caused common injury, danger, annoyance to the public or any section of the public or interference with their public rights."

  • The Supreme Court accepted the plea to quash the FIRs, setting aside the High Court's refusal.

Supreme Court's Rationale for Quashing FIRs

The Supreme Court, in its decision on July 31, 2025, provided specific reasons for quashing the FIRs against Mohan Babu and his son:

Read More: Schools Watch Student Devices, Raising Privacy Worries

AP High Court Hears Mohan Babu’s Quash Plea In SFI Abduction Case - 3

  • The apex court observed that the FIR and charge-sheet did not disclose any acts that caused "common injury, danger, annoyance to the public or any section of the public or interference with their public rights."

  • The court also noted that the filings did not reveal any "voluntary obstruction to a person that prevents them from proceeding in any direction that they have a right to proceed in."

  • The court's ruling effectively found that the allegations, as presented in the FIRs concerning the 2019 protest, did not meet the threshold for criminal proceedings that would warrant overriding the pleas to quash.

Current Demands and University Takeover

Recent actions by student bodies have intensified the pressure on the government:

AP High Court Hears Mohan Babu’s Quash Plea In SFI Abduction Case - 4

  • Government Takeover: The SFI has explicitly demanded that the Andhra Pradesh government "immediately take over" Mohan Babu University.

  • Arrest Demands: Student and allied political groups are calling for the "immediate arrest" of Mohan Babu and Manchu Vishnu, alongside others involved in alleged attacks and kidnapping of student leaders.

  • Cancellation of Recognition: There are also demands for the cancellation of the university's recognition.

  • Refund of Fees: The call for the refund of allegedly illegally collected fees continues to be a central demand.

Expert Analysis

Legal observers note that the Supreme Court's quashing of the FIRs indicates a high bar for initiating criminal proceedings, particularly concerning protests. The court's focus on the absence of demonstrable public injury or obstruction suggests that not all protests, even if disruptive, automatically qualify for criminal charges. However, the separate allegations of financial impropriety and intimidation at the university, which are being pursued through different legal and administrative channels, highlight ongoing tensions between student activism and institutional governance.

Findings and Implications

The case presents a complex interplay of student activism, alleged institutional misconduct, and judicial review.

Read More: Real Madrid Wants Over €4 Billion from UEFA After Court Ruling

  • Financial Allegations: The claims of widespread illegal fee collection at Mohan Babu University, if substantiated, indicate potential systemic issues requiring regulatory attention. The High Court's previous order for fee refunds and fines suggests a basis for these concerns.

  • Legal Scrutiny of Protests: The Supreme Court's decisions on the FIRs related to the 2019 protest underscore the legal framework governing public demonstrations. The quashing of these specific FIRs implies that the initial charges did not meet the legal threshold for criminal interference with public rights or duties.

  • Escalating Tensions: The demands for university takeover and arrests signal a significant escalation of conflict between student groups and the university administration. This suggests that previous attempts at resolution or dialogue may have been insufficient.

  • Divergent Legal Paths: It is crucial to distinguish between the Supreme Court's ruling on the FIRs (related to a 2019 protest) and the ongoing allegations and High Court directives concerning current university financial practices. These are distinct legal and administrative matters.

The ongoing situation at Mohan Babu University warrants continued observation as regulatory bodies and courts address the various allegations and legal challenges.

Read More: Education Helps People and Countries Get Richer

Sources Used:

Read More: Court Asks Mother to Reply to Claims of Lying in Family Estate Fight

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What are the students protesting about?
Students say the university took too much money for fees and that the university scared students.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
The Supreme Court cancelled old police cases against Mohan Babu and his son. These cases were about a protest from 2019.
Q: Are the protests and the court case the same thing?
No, they are different. The protests are about current issues at the university. The Supreme Court case was about older events.
Q: What do the students want the government to do?
They want the government to take over the university and arrest Mohan Babu and his son.