Delhi HC slams Jamia for student ban, calls for dialogue instead

The Delhi High Court recently overturned the suspension of 17 students from Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi (JMI), questioning the administration's handling of peaceful demonstrations. On the 12th of February 2025, JMI’s administration suspended students holding the protest on campus and banned the students for an indefinite period, along with prohibiting them from entering the university premises. The students were marking the 5th anniversary of December 13th, 2019, over the police crackdown on anti-CAA protesters inside the university premises. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, citing the judgment, observed that peaceful protests are part of students ‘Civic Learning' and instructed the university to take remedial steps’. While Justice Sharma, hearing the petition, raised serious concern over the manner in which the university handled the protest, remarking that the documents presented by the students primarily facie indicated a peaceful demonstration. The court noted that universities are spaces for the intellectual and students should not be penalised for engaging the peaceful protest in the colleges premises.

JMI administration justified their decision of suspending the students while citing Rule 5 of EC Resolution No. 3.46 dated 22.02.2023, Ordinance 14 (XIV) (named “STUDENT DISCIPLINE”), which allows suspension for campus disruptions. However, the student’s counsel argued before the court and said the protest was peaceful and that the disciplinary action was disproportionate. While university counsel argued that students were holding unauthorised protests and vandalising the property of the university. While hearing the petition, Justice Sharma questioned the university’s handling of the protest, noting that

‘the document submitted by the counsel for the petitioner prima facie shows that it was a peaceful demonstration.’

However, the court acknowledged the importance of protest in student life and directed JMI to form a ‘Peace Committee’ under the Vice-Chancellor’s supervision to engage in dialogue with the students.

This will set an example for the ongoing debate over students right to dissent and the extent of university autonomy, highlighting a broader debate on students right to protest versus university regulation on campus discipline. Institutions have the authority to maintain their order; the courts observation reinforces that disciplinary action should not violate the fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and expression (Article 19 of the constitution). Court intervention sets a precedent that disciplinary actions must align with moral values. As educational institutions navigate campus governance, striking a balance between discipline and democratic freedoms remains crucial.

The concern over the Peace Committee’s (PC) composition will get heat in the near future, as per the High Court direction of the formation of the PC to resolve the situation through dialogue between students and the JMI administration; the judgment left the inclusion of representatives to the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor (VC). The order stated:

“Let a committee of the officials under the supervision of the VC be constituted. The representative from the students may also be taken by the VC in such a committee.”

The use of the word “may” instead of “shall” raises concern about the lack of a mandatory provision for the students’ representation. This ambiguity grants the VC sole authority to decide whether students will have a say or control in the discussions. Counsel argues that such discretion could weaken the very basic principles of the committee, as it leaves room for not including dissenting voices.

The next hearing will be on the 2nd of April 2025. The court will review JMI's response and deliver accordingly, whether the university has taken the remedial steps as directed by the court. If the PC fails to engage meaningfully with students, the court may intervene further to ensure a fair resolution. JMI has to reinstate the suspensions with stronger justification or withdraw the action taken dated 12th February; it may be ensured that the further protests should strictly adhere to legal guidelines; no grounds for fresh disciplinary action will be taken. Students should document all interactions with JMI administration to strengthen their case if needed.

The intention behind delivering the order was to de-escalate tensions and ensure a fair resolution process. However, the discretionary nature of the inclusion of the students could lead to fresh conflicts, making the implementation of PC to monitor in the coming weeks.

The guest author, Ali Asghar is a 3rd year student of Law at Jamia Millia Islamia.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the publication.