Introduction:

In the case of Archit Garg v. Panjab University, the Punjab & Haryana High Court presided over by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjeev Berry has sought a detailed response from Panjab University on a petition challenging its controversial decision mandating all new admissions to submit an affidavit requiring students to obtain prior permission before organizing any protest on campus, with the threat that failure to comply could result in the cancellation of their admission, as the bench during the hearing observed the inherent tension between the right to education under Article 21 and the right to protest and form associations under Article 19 of the Constitution, pointedly questioning whether in situations where these rights come into conflict the right to protest can justifiably override the primary purpose of the university which is education, with Chief Justice Sheel Nagu remarking that when the right to protest disrupts the core function of educational institutions, students may need to choose between their right to education and right to protest, noting the need for maintaining decorum in academic spaces.

Arguments:

Senior Counsel Akshay Bhan appearing for student-petitioner Archit Garg argued that the university cannot require a waiver of fundamental rights as a precondition for admission, emphasizing that while action can legitimately be taken against students who block classes or cause disturbances, compelling students to seek prior permission before exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly is an excessive restriction without statutory backing, as Bhan contended the clause stating that “the student must obtain prior permission from the concerned authority of the university before organizing any protest at the designated area for settlement of genuine and justifiable grievances from the competent authority, failing which admission will be cancelled,” is arbitrary, vague, and unjustified since no specific rules or procedures are prescribed for cancelling admissions on these grounds, further challenging the clause prohibiting students from allowing outsiders or strangers into protests or rallies, arguing that it is unreasonable and beyond the control of any student to monitor who attends a gathering, especially when former students or visitors could join spontaneously without prior coordination, and calling it unfair to impose a penalty of cancellation of admission for circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control, while the University’s counsel defended the affidavit requirement by citing past incidents where protests spiraled into chaos, disrupting university operations and creating law and order problems, including specific protests against the Vice President’s visit which degenerated into unruly scenes that interfered with academic functioning, with the University maintaining that the affidavit was a preventive measure necessary to ensure peace, discipline, and the smooth conduct of educational activities, and asserting that it was well within its rights to regulate campus protests as a measure to avoid disruption and to protect the rights of other students to education in a peaceful environment, as the bench noted the seriousness of the issue and the practical realities faced by universities in India where campus protests often escalate.

Judgement:

Chief Justice Nagu observing that over the past decades campus unrest has become a major problem undermining universities’ core functions, giving an example from his tenure in Madhya Pradesh where a decade-long ban on campus associations led to significant improvements in the functioning of universities by reducing disruptions, though Bhan responded wryly that the more authorities attempt to suppress student voices, the more likely they are to provoke stronger protests, highlighting the delicate balance between safeguarding students’ right to education and preserving their democratic right to express dissent, as the High Court, considering the upcoming admissions deadline of July 17 for submitting affidavits, directed that students including the petitioner must file the affidavits in compliance with the current requirement but clearly stated that their submissions would remain subject to the outcome of the petition, ensuring that the petitioners’ rights are preserved pending adjudication of the case, with the Court adjourning the matter to September 4, 2025, while directing the University to file its reply before the next hearing, indicating its intention to thoroughly examine the legality and constitutionality of Panjab University’s conditions, as the Court’s observations reflect the complex constitutional interplay between fundamental rights and institutional discipline, recognizing that while universities must ensure order, they cannot arbitrarily or excessively curtail students’ fundamental rights without a clear statutory basis or procedural safeguards, as the case now hinges on the High Court’s determination of whether Panjab University’s affidavit requirement amounts to an unconstitutional waiver of the right to protest or a reasonable regulation in the interest of maintaining campus peace, a decision that could have significant implications for students’ rights and administrative authority of educational institutions across India given the recurring tension between campus activism and academic administration, and the outcome will likely clarify the permissible limits of universities’ power to impose preconditions on students’ exercise of their fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, with broader implications for student activism and governance in public universities nationwide.