Protests ‘natural part’ of campus life: HC quashes Ambedkar University Delhi’s order expelling student

AUD Delhi Verdict: The Delhi High Court has ruled that expelling a student for participating in a peaceful sit-in protest is “wholly untenable in law” and “strikes at the heart of democratic freedoms”, while setting aside disciplinary action taken by Dr BR Ambedkar University Delhi (AUD) against a student.

The observation was made by Justice Jasmeet Singh in an order dated March 13 while allowing the student’s petition.

The court said such disciplinary action violates the rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, and reiterated that universities cannot curb peaceful protests or expression of ideas merely because they do not align with the ideology of the management.

Also read Protest as ‘law and order issue’: Students note pattern of universities filing FIRs to tackle ‘disagreements’

AUD Delhi protests

The case arose from a petition filed by AUD Delhi student Nadia, enrolled in the global studies programme, who challenged disciplinary orders issued in June and August 2025 that led to her expulsion from the institution.

Nadia had alleged that she was subjected to ragging, bullying, and gender-insensitive remarks on campus, which significantly affected her mental health and pushed her towards self-harm. The controversy on campus was triggered by these allegations.

Following the incident, she became involved in complaints and protests related to the issue. The university subsequently suspended her, prompting her to approach the High Court earlier in 2025 challenging the suspension.

In April 2025, the Court had allowed her to attend classes but directed her not to participate in protests concerning the matter while the inquiry was ongoing.

Also read Delhi University lifts ban on public meetings, protests but frames new rules

The university alleged that she violated this direction by participating in a campus-wide boycott organised by a student body. A show-cause notice was issued to her in May 2025, accusing her of breaching both the court’s direction and the university’s code of discipline. She, however, maintained that she had not participated in the protest and was merely present near the site to meet a friend when her photograph was taken by campus security. Despite this, the university proceeded to expel her.

Protest as Constitutional right

The High Court referred to Supreme Court rulings, including the Ramlila Maidan incident and Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, to underline that the right to protest is a fundamental right.

The Delhi High Court noted that peaceful assembly and expression enable citizens, especially marginalised groups to raise grievances, question authority, and demand accountability in a democratic framework.

Universities must encourage dissent

The court emphasised that universities, as public institutions, play a vital role in shaping critical thinking and democratic engagement. It held that they cannot restrict expression merely because student views do not align with institutional ideology.

“A university is not just a place where students attend classes… it is also a space where they learn to think independently, ask questions, and engage in discussions,” the court observed.

It added that “peaceful protests and non-violent dissent are a natural part of such an environment” and must be protected rather than suppressed, and that the role of the university is not to silence dissent but to respond to it.

The court further cautioned that institutions that discourage protest and criticism and expect only obedience risk failing in their broader educational role.

The court held that even if the student had participated in the protest, expulsion was a “highly disproportionate” disciplinary action and could not be sustained in law. It noted that there were no allegations that the protest disrupted university functioning or interfered with academic activities, making the punishment unjustified.

Also read What is the Rohith Act? Provisions, origin, politics of a draft law to combat caste discrimination on campus

Addressing the university’s claim that the student violated an earlier High Court direction, the court clarified that any punishment for breach of a court order lies solely with the court and cannot be imposed by the university.

Student to resume studies

Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the expulsion orders and directed that the student be allowed to resume her studies. However, noting that she had already lost one academic year due to the disciplinary action, the court observed that “the clock cannot be turned back” and treated the period as sufficient consequence. The student has been permitted to rejoin from the third semester beginning July, 2026.

Also read Caste on Campus: The shape of discrimination in universities and why many back UGC equity regulations

The Students' Federation of India (SFI), in a statement issued by its Delhi State Committee, welcomed the ruling, calling it a “landmark judgment” that preserves the fundamental right to peaceful protest and upholds campus democracy.

SFI criticised the Ambedkar University Delhi administration for “arbitrary” expulsion of student activists, show-cause notices to faculty for joining campus protests.