The Kerala High Court held that universities and educational institutions have the authority to regulate political activities by students on campus in exercise of their statutory powers and to enforce reasonable restrictions in the interest of academic order and discipline. The Court observed that the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to form associations, including political associations, are fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, but these rights are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions, particularly within institutional campuses, to ensure that academic activities are not disrupted and that the primary purpose of educational institutions is preserved.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by a law student challenging the decisions of a university and its affiliated college to restrain political activities by students on campus, including holding meetings, demonstrations, or other politically oriented gatherings, without prior permission. The petitioner contended that the impugned restrictions violated students’ fundamental rights to freedom of speech, expression and association, and sought directions to declare the institutional regulations that limited student political activities as unconstitutional. In response, the university and its officers defended the impugned regulations as valid exercises of their statutory authority to govern and maintain discipline within their campuses.
Upon consideration, the High Court examined the statutory framework governing universities and recognised that educational institutions are entitled to frame regulations for campus governance, including those pertaining to conduct, discipline and use of institutional premises. The Court emphasised that the power to make regulations necessarily includes the authority to impose conditions and restrictions on activities that, if unchecked, may interfere with academic pursuits or disrupt peaceful functioning of the institution. It noted that political activities by students, while protected outside the campus as part of democratic engagement, can assume a different character within institutional settings where they have the potential to lead to unrest, create divisions, or impede academic life.
The Court observed that the impugned regulations did not amount to a blanket prohibition on political expression or association, but rather required students to seek prior permission before conducting or organising political activities within the campus. Such procedural requirements, the Court held, were reasonable and proportionate to the legitimate aims of preserving campus order and ensuring that academic activities proceed without disruption. The High Court further noted that the exercise of the power to regulate political activities must be balanced with protection of fundamental rights, and that universities must ensure that restrictions are not arbitrary or discriminatory. Regulations must be clear, reasonable in scope, and aimed at legitimate institutional interests rather than suppressing dissent or debate per se.
In upholding the regulations, the High Court also reiterated that the Constitution empowers educational institutions to maintain environments conducive to learning, and that preventing activities likely to disturb that environment falls within the remit of institutional governance. The Court held that the requirement of prior permission for political activities on campus did not violate fundamental rights so long as the process for obtaining permission was fair and transparent, and did not impose undue or discriminatory obstacles. The judgment highlighted that political expression by students is not extinguished by attending an educational institution, but that the forum and manner of such expression can be regulated in accordance with institutional rules and broader legal principles.
The High Court’s decision underscores the principle that rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including freedom of speech and association, are subject to reasonable restrictions, and that educational institutions have a legitimate interest in regulating activities on their premises to safeguard academic objectives. By affirming the validity of regulations requiring prior permission for political activities, the Court clarified that universities can balance students’ rights with the need to maintain discipline and order within campuses. The judgment reinforces that academic institutions can frame and enforce rules governing student conduct, including political engagement, provided such rules conform to constitutional standards of reasonableness and fairness and are applied without arbitrariness. Universities may thus continue to regulate student political activities within their campuses under their statutory mandate, subject to oversight to prevent abuse of power.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.