The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice in a petition challenging a Delhi University notification that bans protests and public meetings for one month across the university and its campuses.
Justice Jasmeet Singh passed the order on a plea filed by Uday Bhadoriya, a DU student. Bhadoriya has challenged the Proctor’s Office notification dated February 17. DU issued it after clashes broke out during a protest in support of the UGC equity rules.
Advocates Abhishek and Aman Rawat filed the petition.
Plea treated as PIL; Delhi Police impleaded
At the start, DU’s counsel argued that the petition has the character of a public interest litigation. He also pointed out that Delhi Police imposed Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). However, the petitioner did not implead Delhi Police as a respondent. Counsel called the plea a “half baked petition.”
The Court then directed that the matter go before the PIL Bench headed by the Chief Justice. On an oral request, the Court also added Delhi Police as respondent No. 6.
The Court recorded the directions as follows: “On oral request, Delhi Police is impleaded as respondent no. 6. Let amended memo be filed. Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Delhi Police. The petition may be treated as a PIL and subject to completion of formalities, list this matter before the Chief Justice on March 10. Application seeking interim relief be also placed.”
Challenge to college circulars and alleged “cascading effect”
Bhadoriya has also challenged follow-up notifications issued by Kirori Mal College and Dyal Singh College. These notices reiterated the prohibition.
The petition also refers to the postponement of “Rajnigandha-2026” by Dayal Singh Evening College. The college cited administrative reasons and the prevailing situation.
In the plea, the petitioner says the DU notification imposes a blanket ban on peaceful assembly and expression inside university and college premises. He claims the restriction violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.
Bhadoriya says the order affects him directly. He says it limits academic discussions, peaceful assemblies, student engagements, and other campus activities. He also claims the ban has a “cascading effect.” According to him, it has curtailed student involvement and academic discourse across the university.
The petition argues that the notification fails the test of reasonableness and proportionality. It also claims DU did not consider less restrictive options. The plea suggests regulated permissions, designated spaces, or targeted restrictions instead of a blanket ban. It further alleges that the order is “manifestly arbitrary” and violates Article 14.
Case Title: UDAY BHADORIYA v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS
