On June 13, the Madras High Court disposed of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by students of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, which sought to set up a ‘peacekeeping committee’ at the institute, following the violence which ensure after a ‘beef fest’ was organised on campus in 2017.
The petitioners filed the PIL seeking directions to constitute a committee comprising professors and headed by a retired High Court judge, to make recommendations to ensure that no further incidents of violence take place on the campus. The court observed that while the students have the right to protest, such rights must be exercised peacefully and in accordance with the law.
The petitioner alleged that the police attacked the protesting students, while the police argued that the protestors resorted to lawlessness during the protests. The police had submitted that the protestors had “squatted on roads, obstructing traffic.” The court remarked, “They (students) have rights, but there is a way to exercise rights. It is true that students must be handled delicately, but at the same time, students can’t be permitted to go berserk. It says here they were squatting on roads, obstructing traffic, being part of unlawful assembly.”
In 2017, some students organised a “Beef Fest” with their friends and collegemates, which involved the participants eating beef and discussing the implications of the Government of India’s notification regulating the sale of cattle for slaughter. Notably, about 50 people participated in the ‘fest’ as per the PIL.
However, one of the students who participated in the ‘fest’, was attacked two days later. The petitioners claimed that while the student sustained serious injuries, the institute’s management did not take action against the attackers. The court rejected the petitioner’s contention and noted that the police had registered FIRs in the case and the process of law is in motion.
The court noted that six FIRs had been registered following an inquiry into the violent incidents, and the cases are pending before the trial court. The court added that since the cases are pending before the trial court, the court does not wish to comment on the merits of the case. The court said, “Six FIRs were registered. The trial court is hearing the matter … so we do not want to discuss the merits of the case or express our comments on it.”
The court also refused to examine whether a committee is needed or compensation must be paid to the victims of the violence. The court said, “You are asking for a Committee and action against some people. But what about you? Should action not be taken against the students who squatted on the roads, obstructing traffic, and breaking laws? The police report says the students were part of an unlawful assembly. Why should action not be taken against them (the protesting students)? They must have all passed out (graduated) by now.”
Furthermore, the court noted that as per the police’s submissions, the students too had resorted to violence; thus the court asked the petitioners on why action should not be taken against the protesting students who engaged in lawlessness.
The court said, “You are asking for a Committee and action against some people. But what about you? Should action not be taken against the students who squatted on the roads, obstructing traffic, and breaking laws?… Why should action not be taken against them. They must have all passed out by now.”
