'Will Blanket Ban On Meetings Not Infringe Article 19?': Delhi High Court Issues Notice To DU, Delhi Police On Campus Protest Prohibition

The Delhi High Court on Thursday (March 12) issued notice on a petition challenging orders imposing ban on public meetings inside Delhi University.

For context, on February 17, the proctor of the University had issued orders prohibiting for one month, public meetings, processions, demonstrations and protests of any kind on the University campus. 

During the hearing today a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia were informed that a Section 144 CrPC order was also issued by police sub-division Civil Lines, which had been extended to April. 

The court was hearing petitions challenging the February 17 order seeking to declare it as unconstitutional on the ground that it violates Article 19 (1) (a), (b) & (d) of Constitution of India of the petitioner student. Pursuant to this Kirori Mal College and Dayal Singh College had also passed directives, which were also challenged by the petitioners.

The court was informed by the University's counsel that while Kirori Mal College is within sub-division civil lines, however Dayal Singh College was not. 

Meanwhile the petitioner's counsel submitted that the ground reality was that due to this, within the college campuses, students were unable to stand even at tea, food stalls.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that order banned public meetings adding that peaceful protests cannot be barred.

Meanwhile the counsel for the Delhi Police submitted on instructions that the police had "intel inputs that there are going to be chances of clash between two communities of students" and that previously in an incident a police station had been subjected to a "gherao" and in order to avoid any such situation, Section 144 CrPC order had been passed by the Civil Lines jurisdictional police. 

The court however orally said, "Maintain the law and order. Thats your job. See opening line of order...don't allow unrestricted (meetings)...". The court further said that meetings can be permitted with restriction to which the police counsel said that she shall take instructions. 

"Somebody is indulging in any kind of violence, take action. But this kind of blanket ban on meetings will it not be infringement of Article 19?...It (Article 19(2)) says reasonable restrictions. So impose reasonable restrictions," the court orally said. 

To the University's counsel the court said: "See the order. Public meetings, rallies, procession, demonstrations, protests, dharna or agitation of any kind...it will take even peaceful public meetings, peaceful protests. How far can you justify this?".

As the University's counsel said that there was a Section 144 CrPC prohibitory order in place, the court orally said, "Where was the need for you to have issued this order? If somebody would have violated 144...it was open to the police authorities to have taken action. Why did you issue this order?...if somebody would have violated 144 there would have been consequences". 

After hearing the matter for some time the court issued notice on the petition and asked the Delhi Police, Delhi University, the two colleges and other respondents to file its replies in the matter. The court also made clear that no further time will be granted to the respondents to file its replies, having regard to the nature of the issue involved. 

Before concluding the court also orally said that there are certain "pre-conditions" which are required to be met before passing an order under Section 163 BNSS which is equivalent to Section 144CrPC adding that language of Section 163BNSS and Section 144CrPC are similar and "pari-materia". 

It further orally remarked that the liberty cannot be misused and only because the case involved Article 19 the court was interfering in the matter. 

The matter is listed on March 25. 

Case title: UDAY BHADORIYA v/s UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS

W.P.(C)-2673/2026