New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday stepped into the growing controversy surrounding student activism at Delhi University (DU). The court issued a formal notice on a petition challenging a university notification that effectively banned all forms of protests and public meetings across its campuses for a period of one month.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, while presiding over the matter, directed the petition to be treated as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Given the broader constitutional implications of the ban, the matter has now been referred to a bench headed by the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court for further hearing on March 10.
The legal battle traces back to a notification issued by the Office of the Proctor on February 17, 2026. This order was released in the immediate aftermath of violent clashes that broke out during a student protest. The protest in question was organized to support the University Grants Commission (UGC) equity rules, but it reportedly escalated into a law-and-order situation.
Citing the need to maintain "academic peace" and ensure the safety of students and faculty, the University administration imposed a blanket prohibition on any gathering, assembly, or protest within the university premises or its affiliated colleges for 30 days.
The petition was moved by Uday Bhadoriya, a student at Delhi University, through Advocates Abhishek and Aman Rawat. The petitioner argued that the University’s move is not merely a regulatory measure but a "blanket gag order" that stifles the democratic fabric of campus life.
The plea contends that the notification violates several fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, specifically:
- Article 19(1)(a): Right to freedom of speech and expression.
- Article 19(1)(b): Right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
- Article 14: Right to equality and protection against arbitrary state action.
The petitioner emphasized that while the university has a duty to maintain discipline, it cannot do so by completely stripping students of their right to engage in academic discourse and peaceful assembly. The plea further highlighted how the ban has led to the postponement of cultural events, such as "Rajnigandha-2026" at Dyal Singh Evening College, citing administrative hurdles created by the current restrictive environment.
During the hearing, the counsel representing Delhi University raised preliminary objections, arguing that the petition was inherently a PIL and lacked certain necessary parties. Specifically, the University pointed out that since Section 144 of the CrPC (prohibition of public assembly) had also been imposed by the Delhi Police in the surrounding areas, the police department should have been made a respondent.
Accepting this logic, Justice Jasmeet Singh allowed the oral request to implead the Delhi Police as a respondent.
"The petition may be treated as a PIL and subject to completion of formalities, list this matter before the Chief Justice on March 10. Application seeking interim relief be also placed," the Court ordered.
One of the core arguments raised in the petition is the "Test of Proportionality." In Indian legal jurisprudence, any restriction on fundamental rights must be the "least restrictive" measure possible to achieve the objective.
The petitioner argues that DU failed this test. Instead of banning all protests, the university could have:
- Designated specific "protest zones."
- Required prior permission with reasonable conditions.
- Targeted specific groups involved in violence rather than the entire student body.
By choosing a total ban, the petitioner argues, the administration has acted in a "manifestly arbitrary" manner.
For the average student at Delhi University, the ban has created an atmosphere of uncertainty. Campus "Addas" and discussion circles, which are considered the heart of DU’s intellectual culture, have gone silent. The petitioner stated that he is directly affected as the order curtails his ability to participate in legitimate student engagements that are essential to a holistic university experience.
The legal community and the student body are now looking toward March 10. The Chief Justice-led bench will have to balance two competing interests:
- The University’s Right to maintain order and prevent violence on campus.
- The Students' Right to express dissent and hold the administration accountable.
As of now, the ban remains in place. If the High Court does not grant an interim stay in the next hearing, the university will remain a "protest-free zone" until at least mid-March, potentially setting a precedent for how student unrest is handled in central universities across the country.
Case Title: Uday Bhadoriya v. University of Delhi & Ors.
Next Date of Hearing: March 10, 2026