The Delhi High Court on Thursday declined to immediately stay a sweeping ban imposed on processions, demonstrations and protests across the Delhi University campus, but made it clear that such a blanket restriction cannot continue indefinitely. The court directed the university authorities and the Delhi Police to file their responses to a petition challenging the ban.
A bench of Chief Justice D. K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said the order could remain in force for a short period while the court considers the matter, asking authorities to submit their replies within a week. The case has been listed for further hearing on March 25.
“Since when has this order been operating? Let it operate for 10 more days,” the bench said, adding that a balance must be struck in addressing concerns around campus protests.
The court also issued notices to the central government and two colleges affiliated with Delhi University in connection with the petition.
During the hearing, the bench expressed serious reservations about the legality of a complete ban on student gatherings. It told the university and the police that the court was of the “clear opinion” that a blanket prohibition cannot exist, particularly when it may conflict with constitutional protections.
The judges asked why meetings and gatherings could not be permitted with reasonable conditions instead of imposing a total prohibition.
“Your premise is that unrestricted meetings can cause (unrest). Then permit it with restrictions. Take action, but won’t this type of blanket ban on meetings be an infringement of Article 19?” the court asked.
The bench also observed that prohibitory orders are generally intended to prevent an imminent threat. “Prohibitory orders can only be issued to prevent something that is going to happen tomorrow,” the court remarked.
Counsel appearing for Delhi University told the court that the proctor issued the restriction based on a prohibitory order by the Delhi Police banning the assembly of five or more people in the North Campus area.
The lawyer for the Delhi Police said the order was initially imposed for one month after intelligence inputs suggested a possible clash between two student groups. According to the police, the order was later extended in February until April 25.
“It (the clash) happened some time back also. They gherao-ed the police station,” the police counsel told the court.
The bench, however, pointed out that maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the police and questioned whether a complete ban on meetings was justified.
At the same time, the court cautioned students against misusing their rights while participating in campus activities.
“This liberty can’t be misused. It is only because of Article 19 that we are interfering. You need to conduct yourself fairly. Why has this situation arisen? Proctor is also an academician. No academician wants to pass such an order… Reasons, you understand,” the bench told the petitioner’s counsel.
Referring to recent incidents during student elections, the court remarked that such situations could compel academic administrators to take restrictive steps.
“We don’t want to comment on the conduct of students. See what happened in the elections. Which head of an academic institution would issue such an order but for a situation created by you? Do something to ensure that you behave properly,” it said.
The petition was filed by Uday Bhadoriya, a law student at the Campus Law Centre, who challenged the university’s February 17 order banning processions, demonstrations and protests across the campus.
According to the plea, the order was issued without consultation with the students’ union, colleges, teachers’ union, executive council or academic council.
The petition argues that the restriction is arbitrary, vague and disproportionate, and violates fundamental rights including freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly and free movement.
It also claims that the ban has disrupted academic and cultural activities across the university.
Due to the prohibition, the petition states, colleges have stopped conducting seminars and discussions, while annual fests in several institutions have either been cancelled or postponed.
“Discussion is core to educational institutes. An educational institute, campus or college cannot be seen as a place for making such a restriction. An educational institution is a place where students learn; this place cannot be curbed and silenced through such an order,” the petition says.
The university’s decision followed two FIRs registered by the Delhi Police in February after a scuffle broke out between two student groups during a protest.
On February 12, historian Irfan Habib had a bucket of water thrown on him while he was speaking at a social justice programme on campus.
The High Court will examine the legality of the protest ban when the matter comes up again on March 25.
