It is definitely in the fitness of things that while upholding the right to peaceful protests or expression of ideas, the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Nadia vs Dr BR Ambedkar University in W.P. (C) 12636/2025 & CM APPL. 12470/2026 that was pronounced just recently on 13.03.2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that a university cannot curb peaceful protests or the expression of ideas merely because the views voiced by students do not align with the ideology of the management. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while setting aside a disciplinary action taken by Dr BR Ambedkar University in Delhi against a student who was accused of participating in a campus protest. We thus see that the Delhi High Court allowed the student’s petition challenging two university orders issued in June and August 2025 that had led to her expulsion from the institution. It held indubitably that the punishment imposed by the university was “highly disproportionate” and could not be sustained in law.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Jasmeet Singh sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:
“a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ/Direction/Order quashing the Impugned Order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Respondent University; AND
b. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ/Direction/Order quashing the Impugned Order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Respondent University;
c. Pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the captioned Petition;”.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a student in the respondent University. The present controversy arises from serious allegations by a student enrolled in Global Studies at the respondent University, being subjected to severe ragging, bullying including derogatory, vicious and gender insensitive remarks, which had driven the student to self-harm. The petitioner lodged complaints and protests which led to the suspension of the petitioner.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 4 that, “Thereafter, as per the respondent the petitioner participated in another campus wide boycott led by AUDSC as a result of which the respondent issued a show cause notice dated 27.05.2025, wherein the petitioner was put to notice as to the participation in a protest in violation of the order dated 15.04.2025 of this Court. Hence, a breach of student code of discipline. The petitioner duly replied to the said notice on 03.06.2025, wherein the petitioner explained that the petitioner holds the highest regard for the orders passed by this Court and did not participate in any protest and she was merely present at the protest site to meet a friend during which a photograph of her had been clicked by the security.”
Most remarkably, the Bench points out in para 7 holding that, “The petitioner has been expelled as a disciplinary measure for participating in a sit down protest. In the present case the act of the respondent University, i.e. penalisation of a sit down protest is wholly untenable in law. It strikes at the very heart of spirit of democracy and freedom of speech and right of peacefully assembly protected under the Article 19 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution of India.”
While citing relevant case law, the Bench points out in para 8 that, “In Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re (2012) 5 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the right of peaceful protest and the relevant paragraph read as under:
“295. The right to peacefully and lawfully assemble together and to freely express oneself coupled with the right to know about such expression is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Such a right is inherent and is also coupled with the right to freedom and liberty which have been conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.””
While citing yet another relevant case law, the Bench observes in para 9 that, “In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324 the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that right to protest is a fundamental right under Constitution of India and is a crucial pillar of democracy. The relevant observations reads as under:
“54. The right to protest is, thus, recognised as a fundamental right under the Constitution. This right is crucial in a democracy which rests on participation of an informed citizenry in governance. This right is also crucial since it strengthens representative democracy by enabling direct participation in public affairs where individuals and groups are able to express dissent and grievances, expose the flaws in governance and demand accountability from the State authorities as well as powerful entities. This right is crucial in a vibrant democracy like India but more so in the Indian context to aid in the assertion of the rights of the marginalised and poorly represented minorities.”
Most rationally, the Bench propounds in para 10 holding that, “A school/university is an instrumentality of the State and carries out an indispensable public function, that is, shaping the makers of tomorrow. The University cannot restrict speech and peaceful expression of ideas, merely because the views expressed by a group of students do not align with the ideology of the management.”
Most significantly and so also most commendably, the Bench encapsulates in para 11 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “A university is not just a place where students just attend classes and complete courses. It is also a space where students are expected to learn and inculcate independent thought processes, ability to ask questions, and engage in critical thinking. For this reason, a university must create an atmosphere where students feel free to express their views and participate in discussions on academic or public issues. Peaceful protest and non-violent dissent are a natural part of such an environment. When students express disagreement in a peaceful and orderly manner, without violence or serious disruption, such conduct cannot be treated as something outside the scope of holistic development. On the contrary, it reflects the very spirit of freedom to engage in discourse and discussions that a university is expected to encourage.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench points out in para 12 holding precisely that, “A university that accepts only obedience and discourages protests and criticism would fail in its broader educational role. The role of the university is not to suppress every form of dissent, but to ensure that such expression is answered and catered to.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 13 that, “In this backdrop, in the present case the respondents contend that the petitioner was taking part in a sit-down protest and the same has been denied by the petitioner. Even assuming that the petitioner was taking part in the peaceful sit-down protest against withdrawal of arbitrary show cause notices, revocation of suspensions, restoration of timing, and expulsion of the petitioner from university for participation in a peaceful protest is a highly disproportionate disciplinary action.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 14 noting that, “The order impugned is also predicated on the fact that the petitioner has violated the Court order dated 15.04.2025. The punishment for violating a Court order does not lie with the respondent University but only with this Court. It is expected that the University would not suppress a peaceful protests, as long as it does not interfere in the functioning of the University and academic pursuits of the other students.”
It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench notes in para 15 that, “In the present case, there are no allegations that the so-called peaceful protest by the petitioner resulted in interfering with the functioning of the respondent University or academic pursuits of other students. The action has been taken for violation of the order dated 16.04.2025 of the respondent University which, in turn, was based on the order dated 15.04.2025 by this Court, which for the reasons stated above, is not proper.”
As a corollary, the Bench then directs and holds in para 16 that, “Hence, I am of the view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is highly disproportionate to her alleged actions and cannot be sustained. Hence, the petition is allowed.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 17 that, “However, the petitioner has already missed one year of her academic career and the clock cannot be turned back. Treating the said period as a punishment, it is directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to resume studies from 3rd Semester in July, 2026.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Delhi High Court has made it indubitably clear that universities cannot curb peaceful protests over ideological differences. It was also made crystal clear that the University cannot restrict speech and peaceful expression of ideas merely because the views expressed by a group of students do not align with the ideology of the management. While holding clearly that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the alleged conduct, the Delhi High Court set aside the earlier orders and allowed the petition. Very rightly so!
Sanjeev Sirohi