Delhi University’s decision to impose a blanket ban on protests across its campuses has triggered a legal showdown, with the Delhi High Court stepping in to examine whether the restrictions violate fundamental rights. The move, introduced after recent student unrest, has reignited debate over free speech and dissent in academic institutions.
High Court issues notice, transfers matter to PIL bench
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to Delhi University (DU), the Delhi Police and the Central government on a plea challenging the protest ban. Justice Jasmeet Singh passed the order and transferred the matter to the bench dealing with public interest litigations (PILs).
The PIL bench is headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, and the matter is likely to be taken up for hearing on March 10. The plea was filed by Udhay Bhadoriya, a student of DU’s Law Faculty, through Advocates Abhishek and Aman Rawat.
Notification bans gatherings of five or more
At the heart of the controversy is a February 17, 2026, notification issued by the Office of the Proctor, prohibiting public meetings, processions, demonstrations and any peaceful assembly of five or more persons across university campuses and affiliated colleges for a month.
The decision followed clashes during recent student unrest over the University Grants Commission (UGC) equity guidelines. Subsequent advisories from Kirori Mal College and Dayal Singh College reinforced the restrictions, warning of disciplinary action, including suspension and rustication, against those violating the order. Students and staff were also cautioned against sharing related content on social media.
Also Read | ICSI CS Professional result December 2025 announced — here's how to check your score
Plea alleges violation of fundamental rights
In his petition, Bhadoriya contends that the blanket prohibition violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and the freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly. The plea argues that the order is disproportionate and creates a chilling effect on academic discourse, effectively curbing democratic engagement on campus.
The petitioner has sought judicial intervention to set aside the notification, arguing that maintaining order cannot come at the cost of constitutionally protected freedoms.
Also Read | AIIMS NORCET 10 registration opens: Check eligibility, exam dates and fees
As the matter moves before the Chief Justice-led bench, the case is likely to test the limits of administrative authority within universities. Beyond the immediate ban, the verdict could shape how institutions balance discipline and dissent.
