Allahabad HC Refuses PIL Seeking Inquiry Into Police Assault on SRMU Law Students

The writ petition was filed by Ashish Kumar Singh, a practicing advocate, who appeared in person to seek four main reliefs from the court. The petition alleged police brutality in beating up law students from the University. The first two reliefs sought by the petitioner were the constitution of a Judicial Inquiry/Commission to investigate the incident, along with criminal prosecution and departmental action against all police personnel involved, particularly those male officers who allegedly "manhandled and beat women students".

On these two specific points, the bench noted that "the law students, who are alleged to have been beaten up, have not come to court". The bench stated that the "aggrieved persons can approach the Court or seek such other remedies as may be permissible under law". Court, therefore, found it inappropriate to proceed with these reliefs based on a petition filed by a third party.

The third relief sought a writ to restrain Ramswaroop Memorial University and all other law colleges from operating law courses without valid approval from the Bar Council of India (BCI). On this matter, the court was informed that another PIL, bearing WPIL No. 958 of 2025, had already been filed and was pending on the same subject.

Court also took into consideration an order from the Bar Council of India dated September 3, 2025, which extended the provisional approval granted to the university for the academic year 2025-26. The BCI order also regularized admissions for the academic periods 2023-24 and 2024-25, subject to the university's compliance with certain rules and regulations. Given that the matter was already sub judice in another petition and the BCI had issued a relevant order, the bench concluded that it saw "no reason to entertain another Public Interest Litigation for the same cause".

The final relief sought was a direction to the State to provide proper medical treatment, compensation, and psychological rehabilitation for the injured students. During the hearing, the petitioner informed the court that the injured students had already been admitted to King George's Medical University (KGMU) for treatment. Court pointed out that KGMU had not been impleaded as an opposite party in the petition, a necessary step for any direction to be facilitated. Court also noted that some FIR had been lodged by the state authorities against the private university, which was challenged before the court and some interim orders had been passed therein, but the copy was not available.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that for all the reasons stated, it found "no reason to entertain the Public Interest Litigation".

The bench, however, explicitly stated that it "should not be understood as condoning any illegal act of any of the opposite parties or the private University nor will it affect any other proceeding which may be pending or may be initiated hereinafter in respect to the aforesaid subject matter, as per law".