The Delhi High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions arising from the December 2019 incidents at and around Jamia Millia Islamia University. The petitions had sought an independent inquiry, compensation for alleged injuries, fresh investigation into police action, and guidelines governing police intervention during protests in educational institutions.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain on October 5, 2026. The Court examined the surviving prayers in detail before declining to grant any of the principal reliefs sought.
The petitions arose from protests connected with the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and the proposed National Register of Citizens. The petitioners raised allegations concerning police use of force at Jamia Millia Islamia on December 13 and December 15, 2019.
The Court noted that criminal cases had already been registered, investigation was conducted by the Special Investigation Team of the Delhi Police Crime Branch and charge-sheets had been filed before competent courts. The National Human Rights Commission had also examined the allegations and submitted its report in May 2020.
The NHRC had found that the protests had escalated into violence but also recorded shortcomings in the police response, including that the use of tear-gas shells inside the library could have been avoided. The High Court said these findings were not being treated as conclusive of individual criminal liability.
While refusing to frame separate rules for police action inside educational institutions, the Court clarified that peaceful protest remains constitutionally protected and police powers continue to be subject to necessity, reasonableness and proportionality.
The Bench observed:
“This conclusion should not be understood as an approval of every act attributed to the police on 15.12.2019. Nor does it in any manner dilute the right to peaceful protest or the obligation of the police to act with restraint and proportionality. The legality of a particular intervention, including the extent of force used, has to be examined in the facts and circumstances of that case.”
The Court further noted that the circumstances surrounding the December 15 incident involved an escalating law-and-order situation and therefore could not, by themselves, be used to prescribe a uniform procedure for police intervention in every educational institution.
The Bench declined the prayer for compensation and reimbursement of medical expenses, noting the disputed factual circumstances, the NHRC inquiry, the recommendations made by it and the passage of considerable time. It clarified that the decision would not prevent an individual from pursuing any remedy otherwise available in law before the appropriate forum.
The Court also rejected the request for an independent judicial commission, court-monitored committee, SIT or other fresh investigative mechanism, holding that the existing criminal proceedings and statutory scrutiny did not justify such extraordinary intervention.
The Court found no ground for a fresh inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of additional criminal cases, compensation or formulation of new police guidelines. It also found that no further directions were necessary regarding preservation of CCTV and other electronic evidence, which the State had stated was already preserved as part of the investigation records.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed all the writ petitions, disposed of the pending applications and made no order as to costs.
Case Title: Manoj Dhiryan & connected matters v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 13468/2019 & connected matters
