While Bhadoria’s counsels also sought an interim stay on the police’s order extending the restriction at least until the next date of hearing on March 25, as well as the proctor’s February 17 order expiring on March 17, the court refused, also deprecating students’ conduct.
Questioning the continued imposition of prohibitory orders against assembly of five or more persons on the Delhi University campus, the High Court Thursday reprimanded the Delhi Police and sought responses from the police department, the university as well as two of its colleges.
A division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was dealing with a public interest litigation (PIL), challenging the legality of a DU notification dated February 17, which followed orders issued by the police under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (similar to CrPC section 144), prohibiting public assembly of five or more persons, effectively curtailing demonstrations, protests or any gatherings on DU’s college campuses, for a month.
While the DU notification is set to expire on March 17, the Delhi Police in February issued another order, barring “unrestricted” assembly of persons that took effect from February 25 and is valid until April 25. The notification said, “It has been observed in the past that organisers often fail to control such protests which get unruly and may expand disproportionately into huge numbers, thus creating law and order situation in the area.”
Notably, following the February 17 order issued by the office of the DU Proctor, several colleges affiliated to it, including Kirori Mal College and Dyal Singh College issued consequential orders “reinforcing the prohibition in aggravated manner,” petitioner Uday Bhadoria, a student at Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, has pointed out in the petition.
Expressing reservations on “such kind of blanket prohibition”, CJ Upadhyaya, addressing the Delhi Police’s counsel, orally remarked: “There are some preconditions that have to be met before passing any order under BNSS Section 163…Not only ‘apprehension’ (of a potential law and order situation), if you’ve to prevent something which is going to happen tomorrow, only then can you use order under (BNSS Section 163)…We are clearly of the opinion that there cannot be a blanket ban and we are also very doubtful if CrPC section 144 (BNSS section 163 equivalent) can be used.”
While Bhadoria’s counsels also sought an interim stay on the police’s order extending the restriction at least until the next date of hearing on March 25, as well as the proctor’s February 17 order expiring on March 17, the court refused, also deprecating students’ conduct.
C J Upadhyaya orally remarked to the petitioner’s counsels, “Let them (respondent authorities/varsity) file their affidavit…this order has been in effect from February…this liberty cannot be misused, can you deny this fact? It is only because there is Article 19 (2) (citizens’ right to assembly) that we are interfering in the matter, not for any other reason. You have to conduct yourself appropriately. Why has this situation come? It is an academic institution, proctor is also an academician…why would they pass such an order? There must be some reason..we are not making any comment on the conduct of the students…See what happened during the (DUSU) elections…we have to balance the situation…we are of the clear opinion that there can’t be a blanket ban and we are also very doubtful if CRPC section 144 can be used. But at the same time, your conduct too cannot be appreciated at all…This order (of the proctor) has operated for nearly a month, let it operate for 10 more days.”
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
