The Delhi High Court has held that police did not enter the Jamia Millia Islamia campus at the outset to deal with a peaceful assembly confined to the university, finding that the situation had escalated into violence, and dismissed pleas seeking an independent inquiry and compensation over the December 2019 events.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a batch of petitions seeking a judicial inquiry, a probe into alleged police excesses and compensation for injured students over the December 2019 violence at Jamia Millia Islamia, holding that the police intervened after the situation had escalated into violence and not to disperse a peaceful assembly [Manoj Dhiryan v. Union of India & Ors.].
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain found no ground for a fresh independent inquiry, transfer of investigation, compensation or fresh guidelines.
Background
The lead petition, filed in 2019 by Manoj Dhiryan, sought, among other reliefs, withdrawal of excessive force from the Jamia campus, a judicial commission to inquire into the incidents of December 14, 15 and 16, 2019, restraint on coercive action against students and compensation for the injured. These are the petitioners’ allegations and prayers; the Court has not accepted them. The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid.
Police did not enter at the outset to deal with a peaceful assembly
On the central question of police entry into the campus, the Bench held:
“The police did not enter the University premises at the outset to deal with an otherwise peaceful assembly confined to the campus.”
The Court noted that the situation had, as reported, escalated into violence around the university, including stone-pelting, burning of buses and other vehicles, damage to public property and attacks on police personnel.
Right to protest and its limits
Dealing with the right to protest, the Bench observed:
“The right to peaceful protest is not in dispute. Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) protect freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, subject to the restrictions contained in Articles 19(2) and 19(3).”
The Court added that the constitutional protection of peaceful protest does not mean that the State is precluded from intervening when an assembly turns violent, and that police cannot remain inactive in such circumstances, including on a university campus.
NHRC report on tear gas
The Bench also referred to the report of the National Human Rights Commission, which specifically found that the use of tear-gas shells inside the library premises could have been avoided.
Why The Jamia Judgment Matters
The ruling draws a line between the protected right to assemble peacefully and the State’s power to intervene once an assembly turns violent, while noting the NHRC’s finding on the use of tear gas in the library. It closes, at the High Court level, a set of petitions pending since 2019 that sought a judicial inquiry and compensation.
Case Details: Manoj Dhiryan v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters | W.P.(C) 13468/2019 | Before: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain | Date of judgment: October 5, 2026
Appearance: Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, with Advocate Bilal Anwar Khan, and the petitioner in person, for the petitioner.