Prior Permission Not Mandatory for Police to Enter University Campus: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that prior permission from university authorities is not an absolute precondition for police intervention on a campus, while stressing that such action remains subject to scrutiny.

What Happened

On 5 October 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain dismissed a batch of eight writ petitions arising from the events at and around Jamia Millia Islamia University in December 2019.

The lead matter was Manoj Dhiryan v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 13468/2019, heard along with connected petitions. The judgment had been reserved on 24 July 2026. The petitions sought, among other reliefs, an independent inquiry into allegations of police excess, compensation and medical expenses, and guidelines governing police action during protests in educational institutions.

A central issue before the Court was whether police could enter a university campus without first obtaining permission from the university authorities.

The Court held that there is no absolute bar on such entry. It observed that police cannot be expected to remain outside a university when immediate intervention is required because of violence, cognisable offences, an unlawful assembly, an immediate threat to life or property, or a rapidly developing law-and-order situation.

At the same time, the judgment did not create a general licence for police to enter university campuses without communication. The Court said that, ordinarily, university authorities should be informed and, wherever circumstances permit, consulted before intervention. But that expectation cannot operate as an absolute condition in every situation.

The Court also made clear that police action remains open to scrutiny. The legality of a particular intervention, including the force used, must be assessed on the facts of that case. It further recognised that a university is a place of learning and that this character must be kept in mind when police powers are exercised.

Background & Context

The petitions arose from the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and the proposed National Register of Citizens. On 15 December 2019, police and paramilitary personnel entered the Jamia campus.

The petitioners alleged that the campus was peaceful, that police entered without authorisation, and that excessive force was used, including the use of tear gas inside enclosed areas such as the library. They also alleged assaults and detentions of students. These remained the petitioners’ allegations and were not treated by the Court as established findings of wrongdoing.

The State presented a different account. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju submitted that the situation had escalated into violence, including damage to property and attacks on police personnel, and that police intervention was necessary to restore order. That account was likewise a party submission rather than an independent finding on every disputed fact.

The Court considered the National Human Rights Commission’s report of 18 May 2020 as contemporaneous material. According to the judgment, the report recorded incidents including obstruction of traffic, property damage and attacks on police with stones. It also recorded that police pushed protesters back and that some protesters subsequently entered the university campus, after which police entered as well.

On that material, the Court concluded that police did not enter the university at the outset to deal with an otherwise peaceful assembly confined to the campus. It considered the entry in the context of the wider law-and-order situation that had developed around the university.

The same NHRC material, however, also identified shortcomings in police conduct. It found a lack of restraint in certain police and RAF actions and specifically recorded that the use of tear-gas shells inside the library could have been avoided. It also noted lapses on the part of the University administration.

The Court treated these findings as part of the contemporaneous record, but stressed that the NHRC report was not binding on it and could not substitute for judicial adjudication or criminal investigation.

FIR Nos. 242/2019 and 298/2019 were registered in connection with the incidents. The matters were investigated by the Crime Branch SIT and charge-sheets were filed, with proceedings continuing before the competent courts.

The Court also noted that the University had previously pursued an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, which was dismissed in 2021 and was not challenged. These existing proceedings formed part of the Court’s reasoning against ordering another independent investigation.

Key Details

• Court/Forum: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, before Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain.
• Date: 5 October 2026. Judgment was reserved on 24 July 2026.
• Case: Manoj Dhiryan v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 13468/2019 and connected matters.
• Legal framework: Article 226 of the Constitution, Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), Section 156(3) CrPC and the Model Police Manual.
• Reliefs sought: Independent inquiry, compensation and medical expenses, guidelines concerning police action in educational institutions, and preservation of evidence.
• Outcome: The petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs. Other remedies available to individuals were left open.

The Court also declined to constitute an independent judicial commission, SIT or similar mechanism, or to direct registration of criminal cases against police personnel. It relied, among other considerations, on the existing NHRC inquiry, FIRs and charge-sheets, the University’s earlier Section 156(3) proceedings and the passage of time.

Importantly, the Court said this was not a determination of the merits of the allegations or the culpability of any individual. Those questions remain for the competent forums dealing with them.

The Court also rejected the claims for compensation and medical expenses, noting that the underlying facts were sharply disputed and that the NHRC had already made compensation recommendations which the petitioners had not pursued. It left individuals free to pursue other remedies available in law.

It further declined to issue fresh guidelines specifically governing police action during protests in educational institutions. The Court considered the existing constitutional and statutory framework, together with Supreme Court precedent requiring necessity, reasonableness and proportionality, sufficient to govern such intervention.

Why It Matters

The significance of the judgment lies in the distinction it draws between prior communication and prior permission.

The Court’s approach does not treat a university campus as an ordinary public space. Its reasoning recognises the university’s role as a place of learning and indicates that authorities should ordinarily inform and, where circumstances permit, consult the institution before police intervention.

But the Court also rejected the idea that university status creates an absolute procedural barrier. Where violence, cognisable offences, an unlawful assembly, an immediate threat to life or property, or a rapidly developing law-and-order situation requires intervention, the absence of prior permission cannot by itself prevent the police from acting.

That distinction is important because the judgment does not say that police may enter university campuses freely. Instead, it adopts a two-part approach: communication with university authorities is the ordinary expectation, while the necessity for immediate intervention can make prior permission impracticable.

The second significant point is that the absence of a permission requirement does not remove subsequent scrutiny. The Court expressly maintained that the legality of police intervention, including the force used, must be assessed according to the facts of the particular case.

In that sense, the judgment does not amount to a finding that the police acted lawfully on 15 December 2019. Nor does it amount to a finding that the allegations against the police were established. The Court expressly cautioned against reading its conclusion as approval of every act attributed to the police, while also reiterating that the right to peaceful protest and the requirement of police restraint and proportionality remain intact.

The decision also illustrates the limits of writ jurisdiction when a petitioner seeks a fresh investigation years after an incident where criminal proceedings and other inquiries already exist. The Court’s refusal to order a new mechanism was based on the circumstances before it and should not be read as a general rule that independent investigations can never be ordered.

Likewise, the refusal of compensation reflects the difficulty of granting public-law monetary relief where the underlying facts and responsibility remain sharply disputed. The Court considered those disputes better addressed through the appropriate legal processes.

For law students and practitioners, the broader takeaway is therefore narrower than the headline might initially suggest. The judgment addresses when the absence of prior university permission can prevent police intervention, but it preserves the requirements of necessity, reasonableness, restraint and proportionality when police powers are exercised.

Closing

The Delhi High Court’s ruling settles the specific procedural question before it without settling every disputed question arising from the events of December 2019.

Police do not require prior university permission in every circumstance before entering a campus, but university authorities should ordinarily be informed and consulted where circumstances permit. Any intervention remains capable of legal scrutiny on its own facts.

The judgment therefore draws a line between institutional autonomy and the State’s responsibility to respond to an immediate law-and-order situation, without treating either side as absolute.