Protest against UGC draft rules: Delhi HC stays proceedings against Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav and others

The Delhi High Court on Monday stayed further investigation and trial court proceedings in a case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Samajwadi Party President Akhilesh Yadav and others over their participation in a protest held on February 6 at Jantar Mantar [C V M P Ezhilarasan vs State].

Gandhi and Yadav had joined a protest organised by the student wing of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) against University Grants Commission (UGC)'s draft rules on appointment of vice-chancellors and eligibility criteria for faculty positions in higher educational institutions.

DMK leaders P Wilson, Kanimozhi and A Raja are also accused in the case. The main allegation is that the protest was organised without taking permission from Delhi Police.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani today stayed the proceedings in the case, acting on a petition moved by CVMP Ezhilarasan, who is a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Tamil Nadu and serves as the Secretary of the DMK student wing.

Ezhilarasan moved the Court for quashing of the FIR. In an interim order passed today, the High Court said,

“On a prima facie view of the matter, considering the arguments made and the judicial precedents cited and in particular, the provisions under section 215 (1)(a)(i) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, further investigation and proceedings in FIR shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing."

On February 6, the DMK had organised the protest with fifty members of parliament (MPs) and hundreds of students. Ezhilarasan submitted that oral permission was granted to him by the Delhi Police Commissioner and even directions were issued to the police to make necessary arrangements. Thus, he stated that he had no knowledge that he was disobeying any government order by conducting the protest.  

Senior advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, appearing on behalf of Ezhilarasan, submitted that there was no allegation that the peaceful protest caused any obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk. 

He submitted that Section 223 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) clearly specifies that the person who is alleged to have disobeyed a public servant's order must have knowledge about such an order.

A person becomes liable only when he has caused obstruction, annoyance or injury, the Court was told.

Tiwari further argued that the Section 215 (1)(a)(i) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) precludes the Court from taking cognisance of an offence except by a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or of his subordinate.

The Court then sought response of the Delhi Police and stayed further proceedings before the trial court.

“Issue notice. Ms Dhawan, learned APP appears for the State, accepts notice. Status report shall be filed in 6 weeks," it said.

The next date of hearing in the matter is August 12. 

Senior counsel Amit Anand Tiwari appeared with advocate Vivek Singh for Ezhilarasan.