Citation: Manoj Dhiryan v. Union of India & Ors. (with connected petitions, including Nabila Hasan & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.), W.P.(C) 13468/2019 and connected matters, Delhi High Court (Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain), decided on 05.10.2026 | 2026:DHC:8709-DB
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a batch of eight petitions seeking an independent inquiry, compensation and fresh police guidelines over the December 2019 police action at Jamia Millia Islamia University, holding that the matters were already examined through existing processes and that it would not order a fresh fact-finding exercise six years later.
A High Court’s power under Article 226 to order an independent investigation or a special inquiry body is extraordinary and used only in rare cases where the existing process is demonstrably tainted, biased or incapable of inspiring confidence. It will not be used merely because allegations are made against the police or because a party is dissatisfied with the outcome of earlier processes. Compensation as a public law remedy is awarded where a violation of fundamental rights is established or undisputed, and is not suitable where facts are disputed and need evidence. Police may enter a university campus without prior permission where there is a rapidly developing law-and-order situation, though the principles of necessity and proportionality always apply and the authorities should ordinarily be informed where circumstances permit.
The petitions arose from the protests against the CAA and the proposed NRC, particularly the events of 13 and 15 December 2019, when the petitioners alleged that police and paramilitary personnel entered the campus without permission and used excessive force, including tear gas in the library. They also alleged illegal detentions. The State said that the protests had turned violent, with arson, stone-pelting and attacks on police. Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain noted that the petitioners confined their arguments to four surviving prayers, and rejected each of them. On an independent probe, the court said that such power is exceptional and used only where the existing process is shown to be tainted, biased or ineffective, and it found no such material. Two FIRs were registered, an SIT of the Crime Branch investigated and chargesheets were filed. The NHRC had also inquired and reported in May 2020, and that report was never challenged by the petitioners. The university’s own application seeking action against police officials had been dismissed in February 2021, and that order was also not challenged. The court said that allegations against police officers do not by themselves make a police investigation unfair. It refused compensation, because the facts were hotly disputed, individual injuries and circumstances would need evidence, and the petitioners had not pursued the compensation recommended by the NHRC. It refused to frame new guidelines, holding that the existing principles of necessity and proportionality already apply and that police entry cannot be made subject to prior permission in every case. It added that university authorities should ordinarily be informed and consulted wherever circumstances permit. On CCTV footage, the State said on affidavit that it was preserved. The court stressed that its decision does not approve every act attributed to the police or make any finding on the merits, and it left other legal remedies open.