Delhi university bans all protests on campus for one month, sparking free speech outcry

By A Representative 

The University of Delhi's Office of the Proctor issued an order today prohibiting all public meetings, processions, demonstrations, and protests within the university campus for a period of one month, drawing immediate criticism from student activists and civil liberties advocates who have called it a direct assault on constitutional freedoms. Wonders Right to Education activist Mitra Ranjan, why shouldn't the order be seen as contradicting the need for democratisation of people's rights, university campuses and education and an attack on freedom of expression.

The order, bearing reference number PCTO/2026/ and signed by the Proctor on February 17, 2026, states that the ban has been necessitated by information suggesting that unrestricted public gatherings "may lead to obstruction of traffic, threats to human life, and disturbance of public peace." The administration further cited past instances where organisers had allegedly failed to control protests that escalated and spread widely, resulting in what the order described as "deterioration of law and order within the University campuses."

Among the most contentious provisions of the order is a prohibition on the assembly of five or more persons, a clause that activists say effectively criminalises ordinary student gatherings entirely. The order also bans the carrying of hazardous materials including mashals, beacons, and torches, the shouting of slogans, the making of speeches, and any activity deemed to affect the "general tranquillity of the public or the smooth flow of traffic." Critics have noted that the vagueness of this last provision grants university authorities sweeping discretionary power that could be selectively deployed against dissenting voices while leaving other gatherings undisturbed.

The university has justified the order in part by referencing a police order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division Civil Lines, dated December 26, 2025, under longstanding Ministry of Home Affairs notifications from 1978 and 2010. By anchoring its ban to an existing police directive, the university effectively extends a law enforcement prohibition into an academic space — a move that free speech advocates argue fundamentally contradicts the university's own purpose as a site of open inquiry and debate.

Student groups are expected to challenge the order on constitutional grounds, pointing to Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee citizens the rights to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peaceably without arms. Legal observers note that any restriction on these rights must satisfy the constitutional test of being reasonable and proportionate. An outright ban on all protest activity, they argue, fails that test comprehensively, amounting to prior restraint — the suppression of speech before any actual harm has occurred rather than in response to it.

The absence of any specific triggering incident named in the order has further fuelled suspicion among activists, who question why the administration chose this particular moment to enforce such a sweeping restriction. The order comes into force immediately and will remain in effect for one month unless withdrawn earlier, with no independent appeal mechanism or judicial oversight built into its framework. Critics warn that such temporary orders have a tendency to be renewed indefinitely, and that the burden of withdrawal rests entirely with the same authority that issued the ban.

The University of Delhi has long been one of India's most politically active campuses, with a student union history stretching back decades and a tradition of engagement with national political movements. For many who have passed through its gates, the image of a campus where five students cannot gather without risking sanction represents not a preservation of order, but an abandonment of the university's fundamental identity. The order has been issued with the approval of what the document describes as the "Competent Authority," though no further detail is provided as to who that authority is or what process preceded the decision.