Chandigarh, July 8 — The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday directed that students seeking admission to Panjab University (PU) must sign an undertaking agreeing to seek prior permission for protests, at least until a final decision is made on the matter. The court’s interim order comes amid growing controversy over the university’s clause seen as restricting students’ right to dissent.
The directive was issued by a division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, while hearing a petition filed by student leader Archit Garg. The plea challenges the legality and constitutionality of the undertaking, which is part of PU’s Handbook of Information for the 2025–26 academic session.
According to the new clause, students may face cancellation of admission or be barred from examinations if they violate protest norms, including the requirement for prior permission. The rule applies specifically to first-year students and sparked outrage on campus, with political parties and student organizations condemning it as a violation of fundamental rights.
“As an interim measure, it is directed that the affidavit/undertaking at page 212 of the present petition be filled up by all students including the petitioner,” the bench said, adding that this would be subject to the final outcome of the case. The court also acknowledged that the deadline for submission of the affidavit is July 17.
While seeking a response from PU by September 4, the court raised constitutional questions during oral observations. “Which right can be put on a higher pedestal — the right to form associations or the right to education?” the bench asked. “If the right to protest under Article 19 comes into conflict with the university’s primary function of education, you have to choose.”
Senior advocate Akshay Bhan, representing the petitioner, argued that the clause was arbitrary and lacked any formal procedure for cancelling admissions. He further objected to a related rule barring outsiders from joining campus protests. “If a former student leader comes to speak, and an incident occurs, it is unjustified to penalize a current student for it,” Bhan said.
PU’s counsel Subhash Ahuja defended the policy, citing past instances of campus protests turning violent. The bench appeared to agree in part, remarking that protests have increasingly disrupted academic life in recent years. “It has become a big problem for universities, and someone has to take strong action,” the court said.
The university has already formed a committee to review the clause, which has indicated the language might be softened. However, for now, new students will have to comply with the affidavit requirement to complete their admissions — pending the court’s final ruling.
