Jamia Teachers Association v. Jamia Millia Islamia.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court quashed Jamia Millia Islamia University’s orders dissolving the Jamia Teachers Association (JTA), sealing its office, and restraining its members from functioning. The Court held that such actions violated the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) — which guarantees not only the right to form an association but also the right to continue and manage it without arbitrary State interference.

Background:

1. The JTA, an autonomous teachers’ association constituted in 1967, is governed by its own Constitution and managed through an Executive Committee (EC).
2. The EC elected in 2020 was to function till 25.11.2022. Fresh elections were announced for 23.11.2022 by a duly appointed Returning Officer (RO).
3. On 10.11.2022, Jamia issued a show-cause notice alleging illegality in the RO’s appointment and directing him to step down.
4. Subsequently, by Office Orders dated 17.11.2022 and 18.11.2022, and an Advisory dated 18.11.2022, the University:
5. Declared JTA elections nullified.
6. Dissolved the JTA.
7. Sealed its office and froze finances.
8. Barred members from holding meetings or using premises.
9. The petitioner first approached the High Court in Dr. Amir Azam v. Jamia Millia Islamia (W.P.(C) 16794/2022), where the Court directed a meeting on 20.12.2022 to resolve the issue — but no resolution emerged.

Petitioner’s Submissions:

1. The University’s orders violate Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of association, including the right to continue such association.
2. Cited O.K. Ghosh & Anr. v. E.X. Joseph & Anr. (AIR 1963 SC 812) — the State cannot arbitrarily withdraw recognition of an association.
3. Relied on Damyanti Naranga v. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 678 — the right to form an association includes the right to continue it; interference with composition or continuity violates fundamental rights.

Respondent’s Submissions (Jamia Millia Islamia):

1. The JTA was not registered or recognized under any statutory framework.
2. Cited Section 23(j) of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988, which empowers the University to establish, regulate, or dissolve associations of teachers and staff.
3. Argued that Article 1 of the JTA Constitution shows that the Association exists “in accordance with the provisions of the JMI Act,” implying its subordination to University control.
4. Relied on Section 6(xxiv) of the Act — empowering the University to act in furtherance of its objectives, including institutional discipline.
5. Stated that a revised JTA Constitution was approved by the Executive Council on 31.07.2024 to ensure transparency and accountability.

Court’s Observations:

1. Article 19(1)(c) guarantees not merely the right to form, but also to continue and manage an association with chosen members and internal governance.
2. Cited Damyanti Naranga (1971) and S. Ramkrishnaiah v. President, District Board, Nellore (AIR 1952 Mad 253) — the State cannot impose prior restraint or dissolve associations through administrative control.
3. The impugned actions were administrative, not justified by any grounds under Article 19(4) (sovereignty, integrity, public order, or morality).
4. The unilateral formulation of a revised JTA Constitution without members’ consent violated the association’s autonomy and freedom of self-governance.
5. The University’s reliance on Section 6(xxiv) was misplaced, as statutory powers must align with constitutional rights and natural justice.
6. Reference to the JMI Act in JTA’s Constitution did not make it subordinate to the University’s control — it merely acknowledged the statutory context.

Legal Provisions & Precedents Discussed:

1. Article 19(1)(c) & Article 19(4) of the Constitution of India
2. Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988:
3. Section 6(xxiv) — General powers of the University
4. Section 23(j) — Authority to recognize or dissolve associations
5. O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 812
6. Damyanti Naranga v. Union of India, (1971) 1 SCC 678
7. S. Ramkrishnaiah v. President, District Board, Nellore, AIR 1952 Mad 253

Decision:

1. The Office Orders dated 17.11.2022 & 18.11.2022 and Advisory dated 18.11.2022 issued by Jamia Millia Islamia were quashed.
2. The Court held that the University’s interference was unconstitutional and violated Article 19(1)(c).
3. Writ petition allowed; no order as to costs.

Citation: W.P.(C) 1490/2023 & CM APPL. 46832/2025

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Datta