The Delhi High Court stayed the Jawahar Lal Nehru University's order imposing a penalty of ₹19,000 on eight students who were issued show-cause notices for allegedly cheering, clapping, and smiling during a campus protest.

The Court observed that even if the allegations were taken at face value, expressing peaceful support does not amount to indiscipline.

The Court noted that enforcing the punitive order would inflict grave injury on the petitioners' fundamental rights, establishing a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favor while issuing notice to the university for its response.

The Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, "I cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioners are students in the respondent University and, as a student, the right to express dissent/demonstrate and/or to express support by way of cheering for a demonstration, to my mind, constitutes a valuable right which cannot be allowed to be curbed or interdicted in any manner. The students/petitioners cannot be allowed to be punished for an act of such a nature."


Advocate Abhik Chimni appeared for the Petitioners, while Senior Standing Counsel Ginny Jetley Rautray appeared for the University

The Court was hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by eight students of the respondent University who were issued a show cause notice by the Office of the Chief Proctor of the respondent University. The Court issued notice to the Respondent and sought a reply.

The allegations against the petitioners-students were, inter alia, aggressively shaking the camera and cheering for students protesting, encouraging and supporting the act of vandalism by clapping.

It was observed, "I am of the view that even if the allegations contained in the show cause notice are presumed to be correct, the petitioners, at best, were only seen smiling at the protestors and the same to my mind does not constitute any infraction which can be categorized as indiscipline of any sort."

The Court also observed that the impugned act of the respondent University was in the nature of striking a blow at the fundamental rights of the petitioners and the same couldn't be allowed.

It was held that the petitioners demonstrated a prima facie case in their favour and said allowing the impugned orders to operate at this juncture would result in grave injury to the valuable rights of the petitioners; thus, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the petitioners. 

Accordingly, the Court stayed the direction of imposition of fine of Rs. 19,000/- on the petitioners and listed the matter for further proceedings.

Cause Title: Mr C Arjun & Ors. v. Jawahar Lal Nehru University [W.P.(C) 13316/2026 & CM APPL. 61924/2026]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Advocate Abhik Chimni, Advocate Moksha Sharma, Advocate Pranjal Abrol, Advocate Gurupal Singh, Advocate Ayan Dasgupta, Advocate Tushar Chandra

Respondents: Senior Standing Counsel Ginny Jetley Rautray, Advocate Arnav Tandon

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: