[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Sri Satya Sai University Of ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2026
1 WP-5290-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 5290 of 2026
(M/S SRI SATYA SAI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICAL SCIENCE, SEHORE AND OTHERS Vs
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 10-02-2026
Shri Piyush Parashar - Advocate, Shri Ayush Gupta - Advocate and
Shri Arun Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Swatantra Pandey - P.L. for the State.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following relief:-
7.1 To hold that the impugned actions in the name of
"search actions" undertaken by the respondent-State of
Rajasthan is illegal, vexatious and infested with mala
fides and thus, liable to be quashed;
7.2 To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus, thereby restraining Police
Authorities of the State of Rajasthan, including
Respondent No. 6& 7 from harassing Petitioner No. 1
University. its Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, officials,
ex-officials, students, and members of Petitioner No. 2
parent-Society under the guise of inquiries or
investigation;
7.3 To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
declaring that the Rajasthan Police possesses no
jurisdiction to investigate within the State of Madhya
Pradesh in respect of any alleged offence committed in
the State of Rajasthan;
7.4 To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus directing the Police Authorities
2 WP-5290-2026
of the State of Respondent including Respondent No. 6
& 7 to conduct any investigation strictly in accordance
with law and in conformity with the guidelines laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time;
7.5 To hold that the impugned actions of the Rajasthan
police under the garb of "search" action against the
petitioners are grossly illegal, arbitrary, without
jurisdiction and contrary to the procedure established by
law and amounts to roving enquiry.
7.6 To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent-State
authorities of Madhya Pradesh to ensure protection of
the fundamental rights of the Petitioners, their staff,
employees, and management under Articles 21 and 22
of the Constitution of India.
7.7 To grant any other appropriate writ, order or
direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case for protection of the
interests of the Petitioner University.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that search action
arising out of FIR No.80/2024 registered at Police Station SOG, Jaipur,
Rajasthan; however, the petitioner No.1 University and its parent Society i.e.
petitioner No. 2 is neither named nor arrayed as an accused therein. The
actions undertaken under the guise of the aforesaid FIR appear to have
resulted in an unwarranted and intrusive course of conduct by respondents
No.7 causing severe harassment including physical assault/manhandling and
disruption to the functioning of the petitioner/University Chancellor, Vice-
Chancellor, former Vice-Chancellor, Students, Officials of the University
3 WP-5290-2026
and the members of the parent society of the petitioner/University. It is
further submitted that the FIR pertains only to an individual candidate, yet
under the pretext of a roving inquiry, extensive seizures and inquiries have
been conducted in relation to all candidates enrolled with the University in
absence of any direct nexus. The petitioner No.1 has at all material times
extended full cooperation to the investigating authorities and has duly
furnished all requisite information, documents, and academic records sought
in connection with the inquiry to the notices issued by the Rajasthan State
Police including the notices issued under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. It is also
submitted that no circumstances existed warranting issuance of a search
warrant under Section 93 Cr.P.C., particularly when the petitioner had duly
complied with all requisitions and notices issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
Even otherwise, Section 94 of the CrPC in absence of "reason to believe"
based on tangible material cannot be invoked and initiation of search cannot
rest on mere suspicion. The issuance of a search warrant cannot be
undertaken mechanically or by way of a laconic order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the interim directions
passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 12233 of 2022 vide order dated
13/06/2022 and 25/07/2022 and W.P. No. 1972/2023 vide order dated
23/01/2023 titled as "Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Others", wherein, under the identical circumstances, this
Hon'ble Court restrain intrusive police action against a Sister-University
without prior intimation and to prescribe procedural safeguards, recognizing
the need to protect institutional autonomy and the rights of its officials. The
4 WP-5290-2026
said protective directions continue to operate. In parity thereof, it is
submitted that the impugned actions of the respondents herein are arbitrary,
ex-facie without jurisdiction, contrary to the governing statutory framework
and amount to an excessive exercise of authority, thereby adversely affecting
the functioning and autonomy of the petitioner-University and infringing its
rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. Vis-
a-Vis the interim relief, petitioner is also relying upon recent ruling of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Antil Vs. CBI, SLP
(Criminal)/5191/2021 order dated 15.01.2026, wherein the police authorities
have been cautioned to be "circumspect and slow" in exercising the power of
arrest/coercive actions and that such power "is not a matter of routine but
exception".
By way of interim measure, it is directed as under:-
1. During the pendency of present writ petition, the Police Authorities
of the State of Rajasthan including respondent No. 6 & 7 are restrained from
taking any coercive action against the officials of the petitioner
No.1/University as well as against the members of the petitioner No.2 parent
Society and they are also restrained to enter into the petitioner's premises
only after permission from its Vice-Chancellor.
2. The Police Authorities of the State of Rajasthan including
respondent No. 6 & 7 are restrained from taking custody of officials of the
petitioner No.1/University, including Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, ex-
officials, students, members of the Petitioner No. 2 parent Society and/or to
take them outside the boundaries of the State of Madhya Pradesh;
5 WP-5290-2026
3. The Police Authorities of the State of Rajasthan including
respondents No.6 & 7 are restrained from compelling the petitioner and its
staff to personally appear before it and to record statements through the
mode of Video Conferencing, if required;
4. The Police Authorities of the State of Rajasthan including the
respondents No.6 & 7 are directed to take statements, if any required, of the
persons concerned with the petitioner in the presence of their Advocates via
virtual mode;
5. The Police Authorities of State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to
ensure protection of the petitioner.
Issue notice to the respondents, on payment of PF within 7 working
days by RAD mode, returnable within four weeks.
List this case in the week commencing 06.04.2026.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
pn
