By Admin 
The matter has now reached the court regarding the ban imposed on protests and public meetings in Delhi University (DU) campus. Delhi High Court has issued notice to Delhi Police, Delhi University Administration and some colleges seeking their response in this matter. The court has made it clear that all the parties should file their replies within the stipulated time. The next hearing of this case will be on March 25.
Challenge given to the order of 17th February
Actually, on February 17, an order was issued by the Proctor of Delhi University. In this order, any kind of public meeting, rally, procession, dharna and protest was banned in the university campus for one month.
Students say that this order violates their democratic rights. Challenging this, a student has filed a petition in the Delhi High Court. The petition said that students have the right to express their views peacefully and such a complete ban is not justified.
Police cited implementation of Section 144
During the hearing, the court was told that the Civil Lines Sub-Division police had already imposed Section 144 in the area. It has been extended till April.
Delhi Police told the court that they had received intelligence that there was a possibility of a clash between two student groups. Earlier also in one case the police station was surrounded. In such a situation, Section 144 was imposed as a precaution to maintain law and order.
The petitioner’s lawyer told the court that this order is also affecting the normal activities of the students. He says that students are not able to gather at one place in the campus even in a normal manner.
Even standing near a tea or food stall is facing difficulty. Students argue that such an environment is affecting the normal activities of the university.
The court expressed displeasure over the decision
During the hearing of the case, Delhi High Court also raised questions on the decision of the university. The court said that it is the responsibility of the police to maintain law and order, but it does not seem appropriate to completely ban all types of meetings and gatherings.
The court also said that if someone indulges in violence, action can be taken against him, but banning peaceful meetings can be a violation of the rights of expression and assembly granted under the Constitution.
The court has directed all the parties to file their replies and made it clear that no additional time will be given in this case. Now all eyes are on the next hearing to be held on March 25.