Back
dismisses Jamia petitions, says police did not enter campus for peaceful protest
The on Monday dismissed a batch of petitions seeking an , compensation for injured students, and guidelines governing police entry into university campuses over the December 2019 violence at . A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain held that the police did not enter the campus at the outset to disperse a but intervened after the situation had escalated into widespread violence.
The petitions were filed in the wake of protests against the and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). The petitioners alleged that on 13 and , personnel entered the university premises without authorization, used excessive force including tear gas inside the library, and unlawfully detained and injured students. They sought a , , and directions to regulate police conduct on campuses.
Police Did Not Enter to Disperse
Rejecting the narrative that the police targeted peaceful protesters, the court observed:
“The police did not enter the University premises at the outset to deal with an otherwise confined to the campus.”
The Bench noted that the protests outside the university had turned violent, with reports of stone-pelting, burning of vehicles, attacks on police personnel, and damage to public property. The crowd then moved into the campus, prompting police entry. “The police intervention, therefore, has to be viewed in the prevailing law-and-order situation which had developed at that time,” the court said.
Right to Protest Has Limits
The court reaffirmed the constitutional right to peaceful protest under but underlined that this right does not extend to violence or destruction of property.
“Once a gathering ceases to remain peaceful and the circumstances disclose violence, commission of or a threat to life or property, the police cannot be expected to remain inactive or as a mute spectator merely because the gathering is taking place within a University campus.”
At the same time, the court acknowledged that a university is a place of learning and this consideration “must always be kept in mind while exercising police powers.” It added that university authorities should ordinarily be informed and consulted before police entry, but this cannot be an absolute condition when there is an immediate threat to life or property.
Existing Mechanisms Satisfy Inquiry Need
The court rejected the demand for a fresh independent inquiry or . It noted that the had already conducted a detailed investigation and submitted a report on . The NHRC found that while the protests had turned violent, the use of tear gas inside the library could have been avoided. “The report has not been challenged before us or, as brought to our notice, before any other appropriate forum,” the court observed.
Additionally, criminal cases—FIR No. 242/2019 and FIR No. 298/2019—had been registered and investigated by the . were filed and proceedings are pending before competent courts. The court held that without material showing the investigation was tainted or biased, there was no justification for a parallel mechanism.
Compensation Claims Rejected Over Disputed Facts
On the prayer for compensation, the court noted that the facts were sharply contested. “Two sharply divergent narratives” exist—petitioners claim police excess, while the state points to widespread violence. The court observed that the NHRC had already recommended compensation but the petitioners had not pursued those recommendations.
Relying on the principles in and , the court acknowledged its power to award compensation for . However, it found that this case did not fit the exceptional category where the violation was established or undisputed. “These are not matters that can ordinarily be determined on the basis of affidavits and documents alone,” the Bench said, leaving it open for individual claimants to pursue .
No Fresh Guidelines Needed
The court declined to frame new guidelines for police action on campuses, holding that the existing constitutional and statutory framework, along with decisions like and , already require police to act with . “The alleged violation of an existing safeguard does not, by itself, establish that the safeguard is inadequate,” it reasoned.
Decision
The court dismissed all eight petitions and disposed of pending applications with . It clarified that the judgment does not preclude any person from pursuing remedies available in law before the appropriate forum.
Case Title:
and connected matters |
W.P.(C) 13468/2019
Bench:
Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain
Date of Judgment:
