Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, stayed the suspension of the students of Jamia Millia Islamia University after an order of suspension was passed by the Chief Procto on February 12, 2025. The court while staying the order noted that the protest was prima facie peaceful. 

“The Court is not going into the reason of the protest at the moment, but the documents, as shown by the petitioners filed along with the record, prima facie shows that it was a peaceful protest”, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held. 

On February 12, 2025, the Office of the Chief Proctor at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, issued a suspension order against a group of students, barring them from entering the university premises and rendering their identity cards ineffective. The affected students, in response, filed a petition challenging the order before the Delhi High Court, asserting that the university’s actions were arbitrary and disproportionate.  

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the students, contended that the students had no prior record of misconduct. They had assembled outside the university canteen to commemorate an incident where the police had allegedly entered the campus unlawfully and resorted to violence. Instead of addressing the students’ concerns, the university administration reportedly collaborated with the police, leading to the students’ arrest. 

Senior Advocate Gonsalves further argued that the university’s decision was in direct violation of its own disciplinary regulations, particularly EC Resolution No. 3.46 and Ordinance 14 (XIV), which mandated a fair hearing before any punitive action. According to the students, no such opportunity was provided. Additionally, it was pointed out that even under Ordinance 22(XXII), Rule 12, suspensions or similar disciplinary actions could last for a maximum of two weeks, yet the university had imposed an indefinite restriction.  

Advocate Amit Sahni, representing the University, asserted that the students were protesting without prior approval and were found sleeping outside the canteen, which is against institutional norms. He maintained that no arrests were made within the campus and that the detentions occurred outside the university premises. Furthermore, Advocate Sahni claimed that the students were given ample opportunity to present their case before disciplinary action was taken.  

The court first opined, “Without going into the veracity of submissions of either of the parties, the perusal of records itself makes the Court worried about the way in which the protest being undertaken by the students is handled by the University”. 

While the court refrained from delving into the specifics of the protest’s cause, it noted that the available records indicated a peaceful demonstration. The court emphasized that student activism within legal boundaries was an essential aspect of academic growth and civic engagement. It further directed the university administration, including the Vice-Chancellor, Dean, and Chief Proctor, to take immediate remedial measures to de-escalate tensions.  

To address the issue, the court ordered the formation of a committee under the supervision of the Vice-Chancellor, allowing student representation in the proceedings. Additionally, it clarified that this order would not influence any ongoing criminal proceedings against the students. Pending further deliberations, the court suspended the university’s disciplinary order until the next hearing scheduled for May 2, 2025, and directed the university to submit a detailed report on the matter.  

For Petitioners: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves with Advocates Abhik Chimni, Samiksha Godiyal, Govind Manoharan and B.D. Rao Kundan
For Respondents: Advocates Amit Sahni, K.K. Mishra, Ankur, Sonah Tiwari and Parth Sharma
Case Title: Sahibe Alam v Jamia Millia Islamia (W.P.(C) 2729/2025)