Police Not Prohibited From Entering University Campus In All Circumstances; Prior Communication Not Absolute Condition: Delhi High Court
The Court noted that ordinarily university authorities should be informed before police intervention, but action remains open to scrutiny; declined to issue fresh guidelines on Police action in educational institutions and dismissed batch of 8 petitions.
The Delhi High Court has held that a university’s status as a place of learning does not bar the police from entering its campus in all circumstances. Where the situation demands immediate intervention, the police cannot be expected to stay outside merely because the premises belong to an educational institution. Prior communication with or permission from the University, the Court said, cannot operate as an absolute condition in every situation. It further noted that the Police cannot remain passive spectators when a campus gathering turns violent or involves cognizable offences.
The Court added that university authorities should ordinarily be informed and, where circumstances permit, consulted before police intervention, as contemplated by the Model Police Manual. This, it clarified, does not place police action beyond scrutiny. Finding that existing constitutional and statutory principles of necessity and proportionality already govern such action, it declined to frame fresh guidelines.
A Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain observed, “…the fact that the premises are those of a University is nevertheless a relevant consideration. A University is a place of learning and academic activity, and this crucial aspect must always be kept in mind while exercising police powers. That consideration cannot, however, be taken to mean that the police are prohibited from entering a University campus in all circumstances. Where the situation requires immediate intervention, the police cannot be expected to remain outside merely because the premises belong to an educational institution”.
“Ordinarily, the University authorities should be informed and, wherever the circumstances permit, consulted before police intervention. The Model Police Manual also contemplates informing the head of an educational institution, as far as possible, before entering the premises. This requirement cannot, however, operate as an absolute condition in every situation. An immediate threat to life or property, an unlawful assembly, the commission of cognizable offences or a rapidly developing law-and-order situation may leave no time for prior communication or permission. The police may also receive information from sources other than the institution. This, however, does not place police action beyond scrutiny”, it further noted.
Senior Advocates Salman Khurshid, Indira Jaising and Colin Gonsalves appeared for petitioners and S.V. Raju, ASG and Rajat Nair, SPP appeared for the respondents.
The petitions arose from events at and around Jamia Millia Islamia in December 2019, following the Citizenship Amendment Act and the proposed NRC. Petitioners alleged that on December 15, 2019 police and paramilitary personnel entered the campus without authorisation and used excessive force, including tear-gas in the library. The State said the protests had escalated into stone-pelting, arson and attacks on police.
The Supreme Court had earlier declined to constitute a single inquiry committee and left petitioners to approach the High Courts. The matters were investigated by the Crime Branch SIT and charge-sheets filed.
The NHRC reported on May 18, 2020, noting both violence by protesters and avoidable tear-gas use in the library, and the report was unchallenged. The University's Section 156(3) CrPC application was dismissed on February 3, 2021 and attained finality.
The Court found that police did not enter at the outset to deal with a peaceful assembly confined to the campus, but after violence outside and the crowd's movement inside. It held that the right to protest does not extend to violence, and that the principles in Ramlila Maidan, Anita Thakur and D.K. Basu continue to apply within educational institutions. An alleged violation of a safeguard, it said, does not by itself show the safeguard is inadequate. The facts of this incident could not be the basis for a uniform procedure for all institutions, and over six years had passed.
“The right to peaceful protest is not in dispute. Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) protect freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, subject to the restrictions contained in Articles 19(2) and 19(3). These rights do not, however, extend to cause any violence or destruction of property. Once a gathering ceases to remain peaceful and the circumstances disclose violence, commission of cognizable offences or a threat to life or property, the police cannot be expected to remain inactive or as mute spectator merely because the gathering is taking place within a University campus”, it said.
The Court rejected the prayers for guidelines, an independent inquiry mechanism and compensation, dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs, and disposed of pending applications. It clarified that its conclusion is not an approval of every act attributed to the police, and that individuals may pursue remedies available in law.
Cause Title: Manoj Dhiryan v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8709-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocates Salman Khurshid, Indira Jaising and Colin Gonsalves appeared for petitioners, with Advocates Bilal Anwar Khan, Nanita Sharma and Kamran Khwaja.
Respondents: ASG S.V. Raju, Rajat Nair, SPP.