Protests – Delhi High Court Questions Ban on Demonstrations Across Delhi University Campus

Protests – The Delhi High Court on Thursday raised serious concerns over Delhi University’s decision to prohibit protests across its campus, observing that a complete ban on demonstrations cannot be justified under the law. The court indicated that such restrictions could directly affect the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.

A bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia examined the university’s order that restricted activities such as rallies, protests, marches and gatherings. The judges noted that a sweeping restriction covering all forms of demonstrations — including peaceful ones — raises questions about whether the decision aligns with constitutional rights granted under Article 19.

Court Questions Scope of University’s Order

During the hearing, the bench pointed out that a broad prohibition could unnecessarily limit legitimate expressions of opinion by students. The judges observed that public meetings, demonstrations, and processions form part of democratic participation and cannot be barred entirely without strong justification.

The court asked the university administration to explain why such a comprehensive order had been issued in the first place. According to the judges, the directive appeared to include even peaceful protests and rallies within its scope.

The bench remarked that if any individual or group had violated restrictions imposed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would normally fall within the responsibility of the police to address the situation. The judges questioned why the university felt the need to introduce a sweeping ban when existing legal provisions already empower authorities to deal with law and order concerns.

Concerns Over Use of Section 144

The High Court also examined the role of the Delhi Police in implementing restrictions related to public gatherings. The judges noted that Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be applied arbitrarily and must satisfy specific legal conditions before being invoked.

Section 144 is typically used by authorities to prevent potential threats to public safety by restricting assemblies in sensitive situations. However, the court emphasized that such measures should be applied cautiously and only when circumstances genuinely require them.

By raising these questions, the bench signaled that the legality and proportionality of such restrictions would need to be carefully reviewed.

Court Notes Responsibility of Authorities

While focusing on the issue of constitutional rights, the court also addressed concerns regarding the conduct of certain students during protests. The judges acknowledged that maintaining order on campus is an important responsibility for both the university administration and law enforcement agencies.

However, they stressed that the present case primarily revolves around the broader principle of freedom of speech and expression. According to the bench, restrictions on demonstrations must strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting democratic rights.

The judges made it clear that any measures affecting fundamental freedoms should be justified with clear reasoning and must comply with constitutional safeguards.

Next Hearing Scheduled Later This Month

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Delhi High Court directed both Delhi University and the Delhi Police to submit their responses within one week. The court said it would examine the explanations provided by the authorities before making further observations on the matter.

The bench scheduled the next hearing for March 25, when the case will be taken up again for detailed consideration. The proceedings are expected to address whether the university’s order is consistent with constitutional principles and legal procedures.

The outcome of the case may have wider implications for how educational institutions regulate student demonstrations while ensuring that fundamental rights remain protected.