University can’t restrict peaceful expression of ideas that don’t align with management’s ideology: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has revoked the suspension of a student of Dr BR Ambedkar University over alleged participation in a protest, observing that speech and peaceful expression of ideas cannot be restricted merely because they do not align with the ideology of the management.

Justice Jasmeet Singh emphasised that a university must create an atmosphere where students feel free to participate in discussions on academic or public issues and peaceful protests and non-violent dissent are a natural part of such an environment.

Justice Singh said a university that accepts only obedience fails in its broader educational role as it is not just a place where students attend classes and complete courses but also where they are expected to learn and inculcate independent thought processes, the ability to ask questions, and engage in critical thinking.

“A school/ university is an instrumentality of the State and carries out an indispensable public function, that is, shaping the makers of tomorrow. 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 in an order passed on March 13. “When students express disagreement in a peaceful and orderly manner, without violence or serious disruption, such conduct cannot be treated as something outside the scope of holistic development.

On the contrary, it reflects the very spirit of freedom to engage in discourse and discussions that a university is expected to encourage,” the court stated.

It said a university’s role is not to suppress every form of dissent but to ensure that such expression is answered and catered to.

The respondent alleged that the petitioner student was taking part in a sit-down protest, which violated an order passed by the court.

The court, however, said that even if the petitioner was taking part in the peaceful sit-down protest against the withdrawal of arbitrary show cause notices, revocation of suspensions, and restoration of timing, expulsion was a highly disproportionate disciplinary action.

It further said that the punishment for violating a court order did not lie with the respondent university but only with the court and it is expected that it would not suppress a peaceful protest, which does not interfere in its functioning and academic pursuits of the other students.

“In the present case, there are no allegations that the so-called peaceful protest by the petitioner resulted in interfering with the functioning of the respondent University or academic pursuits of other students,” the court said.

“The action has been taken for violation of the order dated 16.04.2025 of the respondent University which, in turn, was based on the order dated 15.04.2025 by this Court, which for the reasons stated above, is not proper.  Hence, I am of the view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is highly disproportionate to her alleged actions and cannot be sustained. Hence, the petition is allowed,” ordered the court.

Noting that the petitioner has already missed one year of her academic career and the clock cannot be turned back, the court said that this period would be treated as punishment and allowed her to resume her studies from July.

The petitioner was suspended in March 2025 over protests following allegations of ragging, bullying, including derogatory, vicious and gender insensitive remarks by a student enrolled in Global Studies, which had driven the student to self-harm.

On April 15, 2025, the high court, while dealing with a separate petition, permitted the petitioner to attend classes but directed her not to take part in any protest in the meantime.

The respondent university, however, alleged that the petitioner participated in another campus-wide boycott, leading to her expulsion in June 2025.

The petitioner maintained that she did not participate in any protest and she was merely present at the protest site to meet a friend, during which a photograph of her had been clicked by the security.