Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioners, 8 students at Jawaharlal Nehru University, challenging the disciplinary action imposed upon them in connection with an alleged incident of vandalism of the Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) system, a Single Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J., held that, even assuming the allegations to be correct, the petitioners were, at best, seen “smiling at the protestors”, which prima facie did not constitute an act of indiscipline. The Court recognised students’ right to “express dissent/demonstrate and/or to express support by way of cheering for a demonstration” as a valuable right and stayed the recovery of the ₹19,000 fine imposed on each petitioner pending further proceedings.
Brief Facts
The petitioners were issued a show-cause notice (SCN) dated 15 January 2026 by the Chief Proctor in connection with an incident involving alleged vandalism of the FRT system, including aggressively shaking camera stands, cheering the students allegedly involved in vandalism, and encouraging or supporting the alleged vandalism by clapping and sloganeering. The show-cause notice stated that the students had been shown video evidence of their alleged involvement.
The petitioners filed the present petition challenging the SCN dated 15 January 2026, the office orders dated 2 February 2026 and the appellate orders dated 30 March 2026
The petitioners denied the allegations, submitting that they had not indulged in the alleged acts and that, at best, they were seen “smiling at the protestors”. Thereafter, by office orders dated 2 February 2026, the Proctorial Committee imposed a fine of ₹19,000 on each petitioner on the ground of indiscipline.
The Court found that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case for interim relief. It was opined that even assuming the allegations in the SCN to be correct, the petitioners were, at the highest, seen smiling at the protestors, which did not constitute an infraction capable of being categorised as indiscipline.
The Court emphasised that the petitioners were students in the respondent University and had freedom to express dissent and demonstrate. It held that the right of students to “express dissent/demonstrate and/or to express support by way of cheering for a demonstration” constitutes a valuable right which cannot be curbed or interdicted merely on the circumstances alleged in the present case. The students could not, therefore, be punished for conduct of such a nature.
The Court additionally observed that the University’s impugned action was “in the nature of striking a blow at the fundamental rights of the petitioners”, and that such action could not be permitted to operate at that stage.
Considering the prima-facie case, balance of convenience and the possibility of irreparable injury, the Court directed that, until the next date of hearing, the imposition of the fine of ₹19,000 on the petitioners would remain stayed. The Court clarified that, after the University’s detailed counter-affidavit, if merit was found in the respondent’s contentions, the impugned action could subsequently be allowed.
[C. Arjun v. Jawaharlal Nehru University, W.P.(C) 13316/2026 & CM APPL. 61924/2026, decided on 10-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Abhik Chimni, Ms Moksha Sharma, Ms Pranjal Abrol, Mr Gurupal Singh, Mr Ayan Dasgupta, Mr Tushar Chandra, Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms. Ginny Jetley Rautray, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Arnav Tandon, Adv.