Lucknow University indefinitely suspended two law students arrested by the Delhi Police over the alleged disruption of Supreme Court proceedings. The students have also been barred from entering the campus pending disciplinary proceedings against them.
The University of Lucknow indefinitely suspended two of its law students who were arrested by the Delhi Police over the alleged disruption of proceedings inside the Supreme Court earlier this month, barring them from the campus and expelling them from the hostel pending disciplinary action.
The action has been taken against Prabal Pratap Singh and Chander Bhan, both first-semester students of the university’s five-year integrated LL.B. programme.
By an office order issued on July 20, the university placed both students under suspension, ordered their removal from the hostel and prohibited their entry into the campus until the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.
The order records that the decision was taken after considering FIR No. 108/2026 and a report submitted by the university’s Discipline Committee on July 15.
According to the order, the two students were found to have allegedly conducted themselves in a manner against the dignity of the Supreme Court during the incident. The university has directed them to appear in person before the Office of the Chief Proctor within three working days of receiving the notice and to submit their written explanation. It cautioned that a failure to do so would be treated as though they had nothing to say in their defence, whereupon final disciplinary proceedings would follow.
The disciplinary measure comes days after the Delhi Police arrested the two students in connection with an incident inside Court No. 13 of the Supreme Court, during the hearing of a special leave petition, SLP (Crl.) No. 31367/2026, titled Prabal Pratap and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Commissioner.
The FIR, registered at the Tilak Marg Police Station on a complaint by Supreme Court security personnel, alleges that Prabal Pratap Singh who had appeared as a petitioner-in-person disrupted the proceedings by using abusive and unparliamentary language, flinging papers inside the courtroom and creating disorder during the hearing. It further alleges that when court staff stepped in to restore order, he used criminal force against the security personnel, thereby obstructing public servants in the discharge of their duties.
Background: what happened in the courtroom
The episode unfolded before a Bench led by Justice K.V. Viswanathan. Rather than advancing any legal submission when his matter was called, the petitioner is reported to have addressed the Bench in startling terms, declaring:
“Mr. Judicial Servant, I order you to order the registration of FIR against ACP Vikas Nagar, Lucknow, and Duplex Technology… because I am the sovereign.”
The Bench responded by questioning him,
“You are ordering?” and “You are ordering us?”
Following which the petitioner allegedly flung a bundle of papers towards the Bench, scattering documents across the courtroom. Security personnel are said to have restrained him after he shouted abusive remarks aimed at the Chief Justice of India.
Notwithstanding the disruption, the Bench declined to set contempt proceedings in motion.
Dismissing the petition on its merits, Justice Viswanathan recorded,
“We do not propose to take any action against him. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, we have perused the records. We find no good grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”
It was the subsequent complaint by the Supreme Court administration that led to the registration of the FIR and the arrest of both students by the Delhi Police.
The incident had also drawn a measured response from Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who, speaking at an event of the All India Senior Advocates Association, chose not to escalate the matter, observing that young litigants sometimes behave in such a fashion while emphasising that safeguarding the dignity of constitutional institutions is a shared responsibility.
The conduct was, however, strongly condemned by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).