On October 20, 2015, around 200 members of the Student Government at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University launched a protest demanding the resignation of Rector Vladimer Papava. The students gave the rector a deadline until 10 p.m. on October 21 to step down, threatening to start a hunger strike if he refused.

The Student Government cited several unresolved issues as the reason for their protest, including:

• improving the university’s infrastructure,
• abolishing tuition fees for PhD students,
• reviewing the university budget,
• reorganizing the administration,
• translating academic literature,
• increasing transparency in tenders, and
• ensuring greater student participation in decision-making and elections.

This was the first time the Student Government had protested against a rector. Traditionally, the organization—funded by the university budget—was seen as an extension of the administration rather than an independent student body. Many students accused the Student Government of serving the ruling party’s interests, receiving privileges, using funds improperly, and even resorting to violence against other students. Despite frequent leadership changes, criticism of the organization remained consistent: it failed to represent students’ real interests.

As a result, the protest against the rector surprised many students, who suspected that the real reason behind it was a reduction in the Student Government’s funding. However, Vice President Paata Bakhturidze denied this, stating that the organization was “better off under Papava than ever before.”

Rector Vladimer Papava refused to resign but said he agreed with most of the students’ concerns and was willing to work toward resolving them. The Student Government declared a hunger strike on October 21 but ended it the next day after Education Minister Tamar Sanikidze promised to establish a working group to address their demands.

Student Natia Kochladze, who later became one of the leaders of the Auditorium 115 student movement, reflected on the event in an article for Liberali. She argued that the protest was less about systemic change and more about consolidating the Student Government’s power and intimidating the rector, whom she described as “notably conformist.”