The Delhi High Court recently held 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.

Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while setting aside a disciplinary action taken by Dr BR Ambedkar University in Delhi against a student accused of participating in a campus protest.

In an order dated March 13, the 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 that the punishment imposed by the university was “highly disproportionate” and could not be sustained in law.

“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,” said the court.

The Court underscored that peaceful dissent and discussion are integral to the academic environment.

“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,” added the court.

The case arose from a controversy triggered by allegations of ragging and bullying.

The petitioner-student, who was enrolled in the global studies programme at the university, alleged that she had been subjected to severe ragging, bullying and gender-insensitive remarks, which had driven her to self-harm.

The petitioner participated in complaints and protests surrounding the incident after which the university suspended her.

The suspension was earlier challenged before the High Court in a separate petition. In April 2025, the Court had permitted the petitioner to attend classes but directed her not to participate in protests or demonstrations concerning the incident while the matter was under inquiry.

Subsequently, the university alleged that the petitioner had taken part in a campus-wide boycott organised by a student body. A show-cause notice was issued to her in May 2025, accusing her of violating the court’s direction as well as the university’s student code of discipline.

The petitioner responded that she had not participated in the protest and had merely been present near the protest site to meet a friend when her photograph was taken by campus security.

Despite this explanation, the university proceeded to take disciplinary action, eventually expelling her for allegedly participating in a sit-down protest. The petitioner then approached the High Court seeking quashing of the disciplinary orders.

While examining the matter, the Court emphasised the role universities play as spaces for intellectual exchange and debate.

“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... It reflects the very spirit of freedom to engage in discourse and discussions that a university is expected to encourage,” observed the court.

The Court also addressed the university’s argument that the student had violated the High Court’s earlier order restraining her from participating in protests.

It clarified that punishment for violation of a court order lies only with the court itself and cannot be imposed by the university.

Significantly, the Court noted that there were no allegations that the alleged protest had disrupted the functioning of the university or interfered with the academic pursuits of other students.

Holding that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the alleged conduct, the High Court set aside the earlier orders and allowed the petition.

After noting that the student had already lost an academic year due to the disciplinary proceedings, the Court directed that the student be permitted to resume her studies from the third semester beginning in July 2026.

The student was represented by advocates Abhik Chimni, Pranjal Abrol, Gurpal Singh, Ayan Dasgupta Samarendra and Moksha Sharma.

Advocates Mohinder Rupal, Hardik Rupal, Aishwarya Malhotra and Tripta Sharma appeared for Dr. BR Ambedkar University.

[Read Order]