New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Thursday declined to stay a blanket ban imposed by Delhi University on demonstrations and protests on its campus for a month, but questioned the rationale behind its decision as well as similar restrictions imposed by the Delhi Police in the areas around the North Campus for 60 days.
Hearing a a challenge to the February 17 DU order, a bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and justice Tejas Karia said the ban should remain in place. It issued notice to Delhi Police and DU to respond by the next date of hearing on March 25.
In his petition, Uday Bhadoria, a student at the Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, and his counsel, Abhishek Rai, urged the court to stay the order, contending that it had been issued in a general manner and that such a direction could only be passed in exceptional circumstances.
Delhi University’s lawyer Mohinder Rupal submitted that the decision was based on a prohibitory order issued by the Delhi Police in December last year. He was referring to a prohibitory order by Delhi Police, Civil Lines, issued on December 26, 2025.
Also Read | DU bans all protests on campus for one month
During the hearing, the judges questioned the university over the need for the order and also the extent of it. “We are of the clear opinion, that there cannot be a blanket ban. See the order, public meetings, rallies, processions, demonstrations, protests, dharnas or agitation of any kind. So, you (DU) will, in its sweep, take peaceful protests, rallies and processions. How far can you justify this? Where was the need for you to pass this order?…What was the requirement for you to issue this order?” the bench questioned the university’s lawyer.
It also raised questions over Delhi Police’s decision to impose Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, earlier Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, observing that maintaining law and order falls within the domain of the police. “There are some preconditions to be met before passing an order of 163 (BNSS). The language of 163 (BNSS) and 144 (CrPC) is similar and pari materia. Therefore not only apprehension, if you have to prevent something that is going to happen tomorrow, only then you can use 144,” it said.
The court also expressed concern over the conduct of the students, observing that it was considering the petition only because it involved rights under Article 19 (protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.). “You (students) need to conduct yourself appropriately. Why has the situation come to this? The proctor (of DU) is also an academic. Why would he pass such an order? Why would he pass such an order? But the way you are conducting yourself. See what happened during the DUSU elections,” it told the petitioner.
Last month, DU announced a complete ban on public meetings, processions, demonstrations, peaceful assembly of five or more people and protests of any kind for one month. In an order issued by the office of the proctor, the university said the decision aims to prevent “threats to human life” and “disturbance of public peace”.
The ban came after a demonstration on February 13 against Supreme Court’s stay on the University Grants (UGC) Commission Equity Regulations, 2026, turned violent. The protest at North Campus escalated after an influencer who was covering the event alleged she was assaulted. Student groups, however, accused her of provoking tensions.