Back
to Hear Seeking Probe into Violence
The has agreed to hear a ) filed by a student of () seeking a () probe into the widespread violence, arson, and looting that engulfed the campus on the night of . The matter was mentioned urgently on Tuesday before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, with informing the court that “rioting, arson and looting took place at the university.” The bench has listed the case for hearing on Wednesday.
Background: The Spark That Ignited the Flames
The unrest at , located in Phagwara, Punjab, began late on September 26 after an unverified post on Reddit alleged that a worker had raped a female student on campus, that the university had sent her home, and that she subsequently died by suicide. The claim spread rapidly through WhatsApp groups, prompting around 2,000 students to gather outside hostel GH-3. By around 2:00 a.m., a section of the crowd had blocked National Highway 44 between Phagwara and Jalandhar, causing major traffic disruption for nearly 18 hours.
What initially appeared to be a student protest demanding a fair investigation and better security quickly spiraled into chaos. The petition, filed by student Ravi Raj, alleges that the incident was “not a spontaneous protest” but a “well-planned and organised attack” by outsiders. According to the , a large number of individuals—many around 30 years old, carrying walkie-talkies, swords, rods, guns, and sickles, with faces covered—arrived in open cars and other vehicles. They forcibly broke open the main gates, destroyed or burned CCTV cameras, computers, UPS units, LED screens, turnstile gates, and boom barriers, attacked security guards, set several buildings on fire, and looted shops, laptops, mobile phones, bank branches, and ATMs on campus.
The petition acknowledges that some hostellers and students living in nearby PG accommodations also participated, but asserts that the majority were outsiders. It draws a parallel to a similar incident at , Rajpura, the night before, where unsubstantiated claims about two missing girl students led to violence. In both cases, the universities and police later stated that no such incidents had occurred.
Police Response Under Scrutiny
The sharply criticizes the police response. It notes that authorities were informed of the gathering at around 1:45 a.m., yet the highway blockade, arson, and looting continued for hours without any arrests. The petitioner points to what he calls “conflicting accounts” from senior police officials. The Deputy Inspector General of Police told the media that the rape and suicide allegations were rumours, and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala, also described the claims as a “rumour.” Despite this, the police later the same day registered FIR No. 162 dated , against unknown persons under (punishment for rape). The FIR alleges the rape of an unnamed and unidentified girl at hostel GH-3, which the petitioner contends was registered without any evidence or verification.
The petition argues that the police’s own statements contradict the basis of the FIR, and that the registration of the case under a rape provision—despite no victim having come forward—raises serious questions about the integrity of the investigation. It further alleges that the police had prior intelligence about the gathering but failed to prevent the destruction, suggesting either incompetence or complicity.
The Court’s Intervention and What It Means
The High Court’s decision to hear the on an urgent basis signals that it takes the matter seriously. , appearing with , secured a hearing for Wednesday. The petitioner seeks not only a investigation but also that the probe be conducted under the supervision of the High Court, to ensure independence and transparency.
The case raises several significant legal issues. First, it questions the adequacy and impartiality of the state police investigation, especially given the political connections of ’s founder, Ashok Mittal, who is a Member of Parliament—first with the and now with the . Second, it highlights the danger of unverified social media rumors triggering large-scale violence, and the responsibility of law enforcement to act swiftly and decisively. Third, it tests the scope of public interest litigation in seeking when the state machinery is perceived to have failed.
Legal experts note that while courts are generally reluctant to order probes into every instance of alleged police failure, they may intervene if there is evidence of a “well-planned and organised attack” that could have been prevented. The ’s emphasis on the involvement of outsiders and the alleged destruction of evidence (CCTV cameras, etc.) strengthens the case for an independent investigation.
Impact on Legal Practice and Campus Security
This case is likely to have ripple effects beyond . It underscores the vulnerability of large private universities to mob violence triggered by digital misinformation. Legal practitioners in the education sector may need to advise institutions on crisis management protocols, including rapid response to rumors, engagement with law enforcement, and preservation of digital evidence.
From a procedural standpoint, the could set a precedent for seeking court-monitored investigations in cases where the police are accused of inaction or bias. It also raises questions about the use of Section 64 BNS (rape) in the absence of a victim—a move that could be challenged as an . The High Court may need to examine whether the FIR was registered based on any credible material or merely to pacify the mob.
Moreover, the petition’s allegation that the police had prior knowledge of the gathering but did nothing may lead to a deeper inquiry into police accountability and command structures during large-scale public order situations.
Conclusion
As the prepares to hear the on Wednesday, all eyes will be on the bench’s initial directions. Will it order a probe? Will it monitor the ongoing investigation? Or will it issue notices to the state and the university? Whatever the outcome, the violence has exposed deep fault lines in campus security, police preparedness, and the vulnerability of institutions to orchestrated attacks. The legal community will be watching closely as the court navigates these complex issues, balancing the need for an impartial investigation with the limits of .
For the students of , many of whom have left campus after a 10-day suspension of classes, the hope is that the court’s intervention will restore confidence in the safety of the institution. The petition itself states that such violence harms students more than anyone else, and has created an atmosphere of terror on campus. The High Court’s decision could determine whether that terror gives way to justice or further uncertainty.
