Complainant and Witness Affidavits Allegedly Mention Pressure to Name Him; CCTV Footage Becomes Key to Defence
Aligarh,: A controversy has erupted at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) over the alleged implication and subsequent suspension of student leader Amjad Ali, popularly known as Amjad Siwan, in connection with a case arising from an incident at RM Hall.
Amjad has alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that his name was allegedly included under pressure from university officials. He maintains that he was not present at RM Hall when the incident allegedly occurred and was instead at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hall, where he resides.
The allegations have assumed greater significance following the submission of affidavits purportedly filed by the complainant and a witness before the Office of the Proctor.
Complainant, Witness Affidavits Raise Questions
According to Amjad, copies of the affidavits were submitted to the Proctor’s Office at around 8:40 PM on September 7, 2026, under Application No. 4618/Proc.
Amjad claims that an affidavit attributed to complainant Haris Faheem alleges that pressure was exerted by an official to name Amjad Ali in connection with the incident.
He further claims that the witness affidavit states that the witness did not know Amjad to have been present at the alleged place of occurrence and that his name was allegedly included under pressure.
The contents of these affidavits have not been independently verified. If authenticated, however, they could be relevant to determining the circumstances under which Amjad’s name was included in the case.
CCTV Footage at the Centre of Amjad’s Defence
Amjad has maintained that CCTV footage from the relevant locations can establish his whereabouts at the time of the alleged incident.
He has requested preservation of CCTV recordings from RM Hall and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hall and has also sought relevant records through the RTI process.
The CCTV footage could therefore become an important piece of evidence in determining whether Amjad was present at the alleged place of occurrence or elsewhere at the relevant time.
Suspension Order Issued Around 82 Minutes After Affidavits
The timing of the university’s suspension order has also become a point of contention.
According to Amjad, the complainant’s and witness’s affidavits were submitted at approximately 8:40 PM, while the suspension order was communicated to him by email at around 10:02 PM on the same night—approximately 82 minutes later.
Amjad has questioned whether the newly submitted material, CCTV-related claims and other records could have been adequately examined within such a short period before such a serious disciplinary action was taken.
He has also questioned the manner and timing of communicating the suspension order late at night.
Student Activism and Horse Riding Club Land Issue
Amjad has been active in raising student-related issues through RTI applications, complaints and legal proceedings. He has also raised questions concerning transparency and accountability within the university administration.
He is among the petitioners involved in litigation concerning alleged encroachment upon land associated with the AMU Horse Riding Club, a matter that has reached the Allahabad High Court.
Amjad alleges that after he raised concerns over the Horse Riding Club land, he began facing personal targeting by the university administration.
‘I Fear for My Safety and Career,’ Says Amjad
Speaking to the reporter, Amjad Siwan alleged that the university administration was attempting to sideline him and damage his career because he had continued to raise questions concerning the university.
He also expressed concern for his personal safety and alleged that he fears an attempt could be made to physically harm him.
“I believe I am being targeted because I have been raising my voice on issues concerning the university,” Amjad said, while expressing concern for his life, liberty and future.
These allegations have not been independently established.
Need for an Impartial, Evidence-Based Inquiry
The central issue in the controversy remains whether Amjad was actually present at the alleged place of occurrence and under what circumstances his name was included in the case.
Being named in a criminal case does not, by itself, establish guilt. The alleged affidavits, CCTV recordings, university records and other documentary or electronic evidence could be important in determining the facts.
The allegations of false implication, official pressure and targeting because of student activism remain allegations at this stage and require independent verification.
An impartial and evidence-based inquiry could help establish the facts and determine whether the available evidence was properly considered before the university took disciplinary action.
The controversy has now placed the spotlight on AMU administration over whether the matter will ultimately be determined on the basis of verified evidence and due process rather than allegations alone.