The Delhi High Court stayed trial court proceedings against Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav, Kanimozhi, A Raja and others in the UGC draft guidelines protest case. The Court also issued notice to Delhi Police on a plea seeking quashing of the FIR, with the next hearing on August 12.
The Delhi High Court on Monday stayed the trial court proceedings in a case filed against several opposition leaders, including Congress MPs Rahul Gandhi and KC Venugopal, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, DMK leaders Kanimozhi and A Raja, and others. The case is related to a protest held at Jantar Mantar in February 2025 against the draft UGC guidelines. It was alleged that the protest was organised without permission from the Delhi Police.
The plea seeking quashing of the FIR was filed by DMK leader CVMP Ezhilarasan. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani issued notice to the Delhi Police and asked them to file a reply in the matter. The High Court also stayed the trial court proceedings and listed the matter for further hearing on August 12.
ALSO READ: UGC NET Exam Cancelled | What is the New ‘Anti-Paper Leak’ Law? And Punishments Under it?
The case is currently pending before the Rouse Avenue Court, where a charge sheet has already been filed. However, the court has not yet taken cognisance of the charge sheet.
Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari along with Advocate Vivek Singh appeared for Ezhilarasan and argued that the petitioner had organised a protest against the draft UGC guidelines on February 6, 2025, and several DMK leaders were among the 15 MPs who participated in the protest. An FIR was registered under Section 223(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on the allegation that the protest was organised without permission.
The defence argued that there was no law and order problem after the protest. It was also submitted that permission had been applied for several times and oral permission was granted. It was further argued that the police could not have registered an FIR in this case.
On March 20, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), New Delhi, filed a report before the Rouse Avenue Court as directed earlier. The report stated that an enquiry had been conducted as per the court’s direction. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Paras Dalal took the report on record and noted,
“The report categorically highlights the enquiry conducted in compliance with orders of this Court and further two weeks are sought to conduct further investigation,”
ACJM Dalal noted in the order of March 20.
In view of the report, the court adjourned the matter for three weeks and listed it for hearing on April 14.
ALSO READ: UGC NET Exam Controversy: Delhi High Court Orders NTA To Probe History Paper Errors
Earlier, on March 7, the Delhi Police had sought time for further investigation and also filed a status report. On February 19, the trial court had called for a report from the DCP regarding violation of legal provisions and the filing of a charge sheet against 11 proposed accused persons without issuing notice to 10 proposed accused persons to join the investigation.
The charge sheet filed by the police named several political leaders including Rahul Gandhi, KC Venugopal, Akhilesh Yadav, A Raja, Kanimozhi and others.
The Rouse Avenue Court had questioned the Delhi Police on why notices were not issued to the proposed accused persons to join the investigation and why a police report was filed without issuing notices to 10 accused persons.
The court noted that only one accused, CVMP Ezhilarasan, was issued a notice to join the investigation under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) through email dated April 7, 2025. The court also noted that the accused did not join the investigation after the email notice and no further steps were taken by the Investigation Officer to ensure his participation in the investigation. The court also observed that no notice was issued to the remaining 10 accused persons.
The trial court observed that the Investigation Officer did not comply with the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Satyender Kumar Antil and also violated the standing order issued by the Delhi Police in 2020.
The trial court then directed the SHO and ACP to file a report explaining their actions. The court ordered,
“Both the SHO and the ACP shall thus file a report as to on what basis they have forwarded the present police report, after having satisfied themselves that the offence has been committed as alleged.”
The court further directed,
“Both the SHO and the ACP shall further file a report as to under what consideration they forwarded the present police report, after perusing that the notice to one accused was issued through email and no notice was issued to the remaining 10 accused persons to join the investigation,”
The court also asked the officers to explain the legal provisions under which a police report can be filed without the accused persons joining the investigation.
The court also directed that the reports must be forwarded through the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi District, before being filed in court.
The court further stated,
“This Court is bound to bring the present Order to the notice of Worthy Commissioner of Police, Delhi to take note of the failure of the investigating officer in carrying out full and fair investigation in the present case and take necessary departmental action against them as mandated by law,”
The court also directed,
“The Worthy Commissioner of Police, Delhi, shall also take note of the casual forwarding of the police report by the concerned SHO as well as the ACP,”
Thus, the matter is now pending before both the Delhi High Court and the Rouse Avenue Court, and further hearings are scheduled in the coming months. The High Court will next hear the matter on August 12, while the trial court will hear the matter on April 14.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on UGC Protest
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
