JUDGMENT : 1. This batch of writ petitions involves a few important questions relating to the rights of educational institutions as also that of the students. 2. The writ petitions fall generally under two categories, the cases relating to schools and cases relating to colleges. Most of the writ petitions are instituted by the managements of the educational institutions and some by the parent teacher associations of the institutions concerned. Among the cases relating to schools, most of them relate to schools affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and some relate to aided schools. As far as the cases relating to the schools are concerned, the grievance voiced by the petitioners concerns the disruption of the academic activities caused by organizations of students functioning outside the campus on political lines. As far as the cases relating to the colleges are concerned, the grievance voiced by the petitioners concerns the disruption caused to the academic activities by the students in the campus with the aid of organizations of students functioning on political lines in the campus as also elsewhere. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of all cases, for the facts are more or less identical. I am therefore referring to the facts of one case relating to school and one case relating to college. 3. I shall refer to the facts in W.P.(C) No. 24995 of 2017 which relates to a school first. The writ petition is instituted by the management. The school is one affiliated to the CBSE where 2195 students are pursuing their studies from LKG to Class XII. It is stated that the school is one performing consistently well in academics and also in co-curricular activities and it had secured 100% pass in Grades X and XII during 2016-17. It is also stated that the students of the school are not involved in any political activities within the campus, and organizations of students functioning in the State on political lines are not permitted to function or pursue their activities in the school campus. It is also stated that the students of the school are not involved in any political activities within the campus, and organizations of students functioning in the State on political lines are not permitted to function or pursue their activities in the school campus. It is alleged that nevertheless, respondents 4 to 6 organizations of students functioning on political lines in the State have been disrupting the academic activities in the campus for participating the students of the school also in their agitations and protests carried on in the form of strikes purportedly for the benefit of the student community in general in the State. It is also alleged that on account of such disruptions, numerous academic days were lost and the quality of education has been affected adversely. It is also alleged specifically in most of the cases that on account of the disruptions of the aforesaid nature, the institutions concerned are not able to provide the minimum classes insisted to be provided to the students in terms of the stipulations of the CBSE to which the schools are affiliated. In addition, it is also alleged that such activities are affecting the general discipline and academic atmosphere in the school and also resulting in wastage of resources. It is stated that the modus operandi of respondents 4 to 6 organizations is that they would direct the institution to suspend the classes whenever they propose an agitation and if such directions are not adhered to by the school, the members and associates of the associations would barge into the campus, threaten the management with dare consequences and at times, cause damage to properties as well and thereby compel the management to suspend the classes. It is stated by the petitioner that though activities of this nature are promptly informed to the police, the police would never interfere in the matter. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the disruptive activities of respondents 4 to 6 are wholly unauthorised and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution to the students, staff and management of the school. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to respondents 1 to 3 police officers to render adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner for running the school from the disruptive acts of respondents 4 to 6, their members and associates. 4. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to respondents 1 to 3 police officers to render adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner for running the school from the disruptive acts of respondents 4 to 6, their members and associates. 4. I shall now refer to the facts of W.P.(C) No. 21770 of 2017 which relates to a professional self-financing law college. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that at the time when classes were commenced, the Fee Regulatory Committee for professional colleges has not finally approved the fees payable by the students and consequently, the students had to be admitted for the courses on an undertaking that they would pay the fees fixed by the Fee Regulatory Committee as and when such fixation is made. It is alleged that later, when the Fee Regulatory Committee fixed the fees payable by the students of the college, agitations began in the campus in connection with the fee fixed by the Fee Regulatory Committee. It is alleged by the petitioner that agitations were being carried on by the students under different political banners and the same, at one point of time, turned violent and led to disruption of classes in the campus. It is averred in the writ petition that the agitators have blocked the common access to the campus, put up sheds and banners in the campus and caused extensive damage to the assets of the college. It is also alleged that though a group of students in the campus were also involved in the so-called agitation, the disruptive activities were mainly carried on by the leaders of the organizations of students functioning on political lines. In this case also, it is alleged that though the police was informed about the disruptive activities, they declined to afford protection and consequently, the college had to be closed down, indefinitely for quite some time. The petitioner in the writ petition also therefore, seeks directions to the police to afford meaningful protection to the life of the students and staff members and also for the property of the college so as to run the college without the disruptive activities of the organizations of students. 5. The petitioner in the writ petition also therefore, seeks directions to the police to afford meaningful protection to the life of the students and staff members and also for the property of the college so as to run the college without the disruptive activities of the organizations of students. 5. If the fee structure prescribed by the college is the cause for the student agitation in the college involved in W.P.(C) No. 21770 of 2017, the cause for student agitation in other matters are different. In one case, the agitation started with a demand to withdraw the disciplinary proceedings initiated against some students and in another, the agitation started with a demand for improving the infrastructure provided to the students in the campus. Similarly, in another case, the clash between two factions of the students belonging to two different organizations was the cause for the agitation. In one of the cases, it is alleged that disruption was on account of the problems created by the local leaders of political parties. The cases also involve cases similar to the one referred to in relation to schools. 6. In all these matters, it is seen that interim orders have been granted by this Court, and the colleges are functioning on the strength of the interim orders. 7. On 31.07.2017, having noticed that the disruptive activities of the student organizations are spreading like a wildfire and the same is affecting even children in the lower sections of the schools, this Court passed a common order in a few matters involved in this batch, directing the State to file an affidavit offering concrete steps to prevent destructive activities in the campuses and for ensuring smooth conduct of classes. 8. Pursuant to the said interim order, the State Government has filed an affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 24192 of 2017. The affidavit does not refer to nor deal with the issues raised in the cases relating to schools. In the affidavit, it is admitted that untoward incidents as highlighted by the petitioners are being reported from a few institutions and the Government is taking the same very seriously. The affidavit does not refer to nor deal with the issues raised in the cases relating to schools. In the affidavit, it is admitted that untoward incidents as highlighted by the petitioners are being reported from a few institutions and the Government is taking the same very seriously. It is stated in the affidavit that the stand of the Government as regards the internal issues in the campuses is that the same are to be sorted out by taking recourse to the dispute resolution mechanisms evolved in terms of statutes or otherwise like College Council, Parent Teacher Association, Disciplinary Committee, Anti-ragging Cell, Grievance Redressal Cell etc. It is, however, stated in the affidavit that peaceful protests of students, teachers and other employees of the institutions in the campuses cannot be barred and the campuses shall be free and open for democratic protest, dialogues and discussions in a peaceful manner. It is also stated in the affidavit that the students should involve in issues affecting them without crossing the barriers of law. It is however, stated that if the student activities cross the barriers of law, the Head of the institution can seek the assistance of the law enforcement agencies whenever and wherever situations warrant, the purpose of maintaining discipline in the campus and to foster academic excellence. As regards interference of external forces in the campus activities, it is stated in the affidavit that the same has to be dealt with in accordance with the law governing unlawful activities. 9. In W.P. (C) No.20726 of 2019 relating to the college, one of the organizations of students functioning on political lines in the State has also filed an affidavit. It is stated in the affidavit that the students must be free to choose their political views and ideology, and democratic rights shall not be curtailed with the aid of police protection. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the organizations of students who were present at the time of hearing. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the following questions are formulated for decision in these matters : (i) Do organizations of students, formed on political lines, have any right to compel students who do not want to partake in their strikes and agitations to forego the academic and other activities in their campus. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the following questions are formulated for decision in these matters : (i) Do organizations of students, formed on political lines, have any right to compel students who do not want to partake in their strikes and agitations to forego the academic and other activities in their campus. (ii) Do organizations of students, or for that matter the students, have any right to convene meetings other than official meetings and resort to the modes of agitations like Strike, Dharna, Gherao, Processions etc. in school and college campuses for expressing their protests or dissent on any issues, political or otherwise, or for enforcement of their rights. (iii) The role of the police in matters relating to student unrest in the school and college campuses. 12. Question(i): It is established in these proceedings beyond doubt that organizations of students functioning on political lines in the State used to disrupt the academic and other activities in schools and in some colleges, the students of which do not owe allegiance to them, with a view to compel them to partake in their agitations and strikes by foregoing their academic and other activities in the campuses. In the light of the decision of the Apex court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645 , there cannot be any doubt that right to education is part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, Article 21A of the Constitution also guarantees to children of the age 6 to 14 a right for free and compulsory education. There cannot be any doubt that excellence in education can be achieved only when the teaching faculty in the educational institutions are able to discharge their duties in the manner in which they are required to do so. If the process of imparting education is obstructed or disturbed, the excellence in education cannot be achieved. In other words, if the process of imparting education is obstructed, the same would affect the right to education guaranteed to the students. If the process of imparting education is obstructed or disturbed, the excellence in education cannot be achieved. In other words, if the process of imparting education is obstructed, the same would affect the right to education guaranteed to the students. In Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala 2004 (2) KLT 627 , it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that students on strike have no right to cause any obstructions and disturbances to the conduct of classes or to prevent other students from attending classes, for such conducts would affect the right of the students who are not on strike to attend classes without being prevented or disturbed by others, which is part of their fundamental rights. Further, in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 , the Apex court has held that right to establish and run an educational institution is an activity which is to be regarded as an occupation falling under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In other words, disruption of the activities in an educational institution would violate the fundamental right of the management to run the institution as well. It is therefore clear that organizations of students will not have any right to disrupt or disturb the academic and other activities of students who do not want to partake in their strikes and agitations or any right to compel such students to forego the academic activities in their campuses. The question is answered accordingly. 13. Question(ii): As observed by the Apex court in Harpal Singh v. Devinder Singh, (1997) 6 SCC 660 , it is a malady in our country that political parties allure students, particularly in the adolescent age, who are susceptible to easy persuasiveness and who are easily swayable through their student wings for enlisting support and participation of student population in their political programmes. It is common knowledge that organizations of students functioning in the State on political lines are student wings formed by the political parties functioning in the State, though the political parties would proclaim that they have no formal connection with the organizations of students. The materials on record reveal that organizations of students functioning on political lines have their presence in their respective names in most of the school and college campuses in the State. The materials on record reveal that organizations of students functioning on political lines have their presence in their respective names in most of the school and college campuses in the State. It is also common knowledge that it is with the active support and assistance of the political parties that their student wings function in the campuses. It is also common knowledge that wherever there exists resistance for the organizations of students to function, the political parties would extend moral as well as physical support to get over the resistances. It has come out that organizations of students functioning on political lines in the campuses used to convene meetings of their members in the campuses itself, contest school and college union elections in their respective names and resort to the modes of agitations like Strike, Dharna, Gherao, processions, etc. in the campuses for expressing their protests or dissent on political issues as also issues within the campus and for enforcement of the rights of students in general and also in particular as applicable to the students in the campus. It has also come out that strikes are performed by organisation of students functioning on political lines by boycotting classes, for the success of which, the organizations would compel even the students who want to attend classes to forgo their classes and to join hands with them. It has also come out that clashes of the students in the campuses are mostly between the students belonging to different organizations functioning on political lines. Newspapers have reported in recent times even recovery of deadly weapons stored by organizations of students in the campuses. Similarly, there have been even instances of murder of students in the campuses due to inter organisation rivalry. Various instances of destructive activities resorted to by organizations of students and their supporters in the campuses with the active support of external political forces for reinforcing their strength and support in the campus affecting adversely the academic and other activities in the campus are part of the pleadings in these matters. Many instances of violence resorted by organizations of students for enforcing illegitimate demands are also disclosed in the pleadings. It has also come out when untoward incidents take place in the campuses, classes are suspended indefinitely and classes are resumed only when an atmosphere conducive for conducting classes is resumed. Many instances of violence resorted by organizations of students for enforcing illegitimate demands are also disclosed in the pleadings. It has also come out when untoward incidents take place in the campuses, classes are suspended indefinitely and classes are resumed only when an atmosphere conducive for conducting classes is resumed. The question formulated has to be answered in the aforesaid background. 14. No doubt, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees to students, freedom of speech and expression. Similarly, Article 19(1)(b) guarantees to them freedom to assemble peacefully and Article 19(1)(c) guarantees to them freedom to form associations. Freedom of speech and expression, freedom to assemble peacefully and freedom to form associations are basic ethos of a democratic system. Students should therefore, certainly have a right to raise their voice against the decisions and actions of the authorities or even to express their resentment over the actions of the authorities on any subject of social or national importance. Further, the right to dissent without fear of victimisation is also implied in a democratic polity, for, it is only through debate, discussion, dialogue and constructive criticism, diversity of perceptions and ideas would emerge, which are necessary for the development of the society. It is beyond dispute that it is on the basis of the aforesaid rights that organizations of students function and resort to the modes of agitations like Strike, Dharna, Gherao, Processions etc. in the campuses for expressing their protests or for enforcement of their rights. The pointed question therefore, is as to whether the rights aforesaid confer on organizations of students a corresponding right to function in school and college campuses and resort to the modes of agitations like Strike, Dharna, Gherao, Processions etc. 15. In M.E.S. Ponnani College v. Debashish Kumar Behra, 2017(5) KHC 13 , a Division Bench of this court observed that political activities like dharna, hunger strike and other practices like Satyagraha have no place in academic institutions. It was also observed in the said case that anyone indulging in such activities in an educational institution would make himself liable to be expelled and/or rusticated, for, educational institutions are meant for imparting education and not for politics. It was also observed in the said case that anyone indulging in such activities in an educational institution would make himself liable to be expelled and/or rusticated, for, educational institutions are meant for imparting education and not for politics. Earlier, in Kerala Students Union v. Sojan Francis, 2004 (2) KLT 378 , a Division Bench of this court has observed that students have to voice their opinion on political issues and redress their grievances by recourse to the various forums meant for the same under the University statutes and not through organizations. Paragraph 22 of the judgment which is relevant in the context reads thus : 22. We have gone through the various University Acts, Statutes and Ordinances dealing with affiliated colleges, government colleges etc. University legislations confer considerable powers to students to exercise their freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully in the various statutory bodies established under the University Statutes. The University laws are highly democratic and it permits organisational activities within the campus, through recognised forums like Students Council, College Council, University Senate, Syndicate, University Union, Cultural and Debating Solution, Students Advisory Bureau etc. Students could ventilate their grievances and express their views on any political issue as a co-curricular activity through these forums within the campus, thereby the rights of the students have been effectively safeguarded by the University laws and statutes. Apex court in University of Delhi v. Anand Vardhan Chandal (2000) 10 SCC 648 ) held that right to education is a fundamental right but to participate in the Students Union activities at best is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right guaranteed under Arts.21, 19(1)(a) or (c) of the Constitution of India. Students could exercise only those statutory rights permitted by the University laws within the campus of the institutions. The right of private managements and educational agencies to prohibit the interference of organizations of students within the campus, either directly or through their member students and their right to prohibit modes of agitations like strikes, gherao, dharna, bandh, hartal etc was also upheld by the Division Bench in the said case. The right of private managements and educational agencies to prohibit the interference of organizations of students within the campus, either directly or through their member students and their right to prohibit modes of agitations like strikes, gherao, dharna, bandh, hartal etc was also upheld by the Division Bench in the said case. As noted, in Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala, 2004 (2) KLT 627 , it has been held by this court that students who are not on strike have a right to attend classes without being prevented or disturbed by others and students on strike have no right to cause obstruction and disturbance to the conduct of classes or to prevent other students from attending classes and that demonstrations, 'dharna' and similar activities inside the college campus would definitely cause obstruction and disturbance to the conduct of classes and will prevent the teachers from conducting classes and other students from attending classes. It was also held by this court in the said case that if the students on strike want to hold agitation, demonstration, 'dharna', etc., they may hold it only outside the college campus so that no sort of obstruction or disturbance is caused to the smooth functioning of the college and the conduct of classes and on the rights of the other students . 16. The bounds of the freedom that an individual enjoys in a democratic polity has been succinctly stated by the British Philosopher John Stuart Mill thus : “My right to swing my arms in any direction ends where your nose begins.” Similar is the statement made by Abraham Lincoln in this context. The bounds of the freedom has been defined by Abraham Lincoln thus: "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" In other words, the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom to assemble peacefully and the freedom to form associations as available to the students shall not harm others in any manner. It shall not also cause any injury, disorder or nuisance to others. As observed by Justice Holmes of the U.S. Supreme Court as early as in 1919, in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47(1919), the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done and even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. 17. 17. It is relevant in this context to refer to a passage from the decision of the Apex Court in Dr.D.C. Saxena v. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, (1996) 5 SCC 216 which reads thus: “If maintenance of democracy is the foundation for free speech, society equally is entitled to regulate freedom of speech or expression by democratic action. The reason is obvious, viz, that society accepts free speech and expression and also puts limits on the right of the majority. Interest of the people involved in the acts of expression should be looked at not only from the perspective of the speaker but also the place at which he speaks, the scenario, the audience, the reaction of the publication, the purpose of the speech and the place and the forum in which the citizen exercises his freedom of speech and expression. The State has legitimate interest, therefore, to regulate the freedom of speech and expression which liberty represents the limits of the duty of restraint on speech or expression not to utter defamatory or libellous speech or expression. There is a correlative duty not to interfere with the liberty of others. Each is entitled to dignity of person and of reputation. Nobody has a right to denigrate others’ right to person or reputation. Therefore, freedom of speech and expression is tolerated so long as it is not malicious or libellous, so that all attempts to foster and ensure orderly and peaceful public discussion or public good should result from free speech in the market-place. If such speech or expression was untrue and so reckless as to its truth, the speaker or the author does not get protection of the constitutional right. 18. Education plays a key role in social and economic development of humanity. In so far as the students in the campus have a fundamental right to education, it can be safely held that anything that causes an impediment to the said right would be unconstitutional. The materials on record demonstrate beyond doubt that activities of organizations of students in convening meetings of their members and supporters and their conduct in resorting to the modes of agitations like Strike, Dharna, Gherao, Processions etc. in school and college campuses, are affecting directly and indirectly the academic and other activities of students who do not belong to the organizations and thus violating the fundamental right of such students. in school and college campuses, are affecting directly and indirectly the academic and other activities of students who do not belong to the organizations and thus violating the fundamental right of such students. I have, therefore, no doubt that organizations of students, or for that matter the students, have no right whatsoever to convene meetings other than official meetings and resort to the modes of agitations like Strike, Dharna, Gherao, Processions etc. in school and college campuses for expressing their protests or dissent on any issues, political or otherwise, or for enforcement of their rights. The issue is answered accordingly. 19. Question(iii): The stand of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is that they are not being extended timely police aid and consequently, they are unable to ensure the smooth conduct of the institution from external interferences and also from internal disturbances. It is the specific stand of the petitioners that police is not extending aid to run educational institutions at times of student unrest on account of external political interferences. In M.E.S. Ponnani College, it has been held by this court that if any student is found to be resorting to and / or enforcing Dharna, Strike or disruption of academic atmosphere in any college, the Principal or the authorities of the institutions would be well within their powers to rusticate them, for these are no means to ventilate their grievance. It is also held by this court in the said case that if called upon by the college authorities, the police would be under obligation to assist the authorities in maintaining peace and orderly conduct of academics in the college premises. It is also held by this court in the said case that if requested for, it is the obligation of the police to clear pickets, tents, stalls etc. set up in and around the college campus or its immediate vicinity for facilitating Dharna or hunger strike. It is held by the Division Bench in Antony Thomas v. Muhammed Rafique, 2017 (4) KLT 586 that it is the obligation of the police to ensure that the academic atmosphere in educational institutions are not disturbed and the educational institutions cannot be hijacked or converted into a political battle field. It is held by the Division Bench in Antony Thomas v. Muhammed Rafique, 2017 (4) KLT 586 that it is the obligation of the police to ensure that the academic atmosphere in educational institutions are not disturbed and the educational institutions cannot be hijacked or converted into a political battle field. In Vijayakumar, it was held by this court that students indulging in criminal activities inside the college campus are liable to be dealt with just like any other offender, and if situation warrants, police can enter the campus without anybody's request or permission in order to prevent such criminal activities or take action against the offenders. In the light of the judicial pronouncements aforesaid, I am constrained to hold that it is the obligation of the police to ensure that the fundamental rights of the students to pursue their academics in the campuses are not flouted by anyone, including organizations of students. The question is answered accordingly. 20. In the result, It is declared that organizations of students do not have any right to disrupt or disturb the academic and other activities of students who do not want to partake in their strikes and agitations, or any right to compel such students to forego the aforesaid activities in their campuses. Similarly, it is also declared that organizations of students do not have any right to convene any meetings and resort to the modes of agitations like Strike, Dharna, Gherao, Processions etc. in school and college campuses for expressing their protests or dissent on any issues, political or otherwise, or for enforcement of their rights. It is also declared that it is the obligation of the police to ensure that the fundamental rights of the students to pursue their academics in the campuses are not thwarted by anyone, including organizations of students. It is, however, made clear that this judgement will not preclude the students from voicing their opinion on political issues and redressing their grievances by recourse to the various forums meant for the same in terms of the statutes and executive orders. Similarly, it is also made clear that this judgement will not preclude the competent authorities from introducing appropriate forums in the campuses for the students to voice their opinion on political issues and for redressal of their grievances in accordance with law, if the existing forums are not sufficient for the same. Similarly, it is also made clear that this judgement will not preclude the competent authorities from introducing appropriate forums in the campuses for the students to voice their opinion on political issues and for redressal of their grievances in accordance with law, if the existing forums are not sufficient for the same. The writ petitions, in the circumstances, are disposed of making the interim orders passed in the matters absolute. 21. Before parting with this judgment, it is necessary to mention that whatever has been stated in this judgment are nothing but reiterations of what has already been stated in various judicial pronouncements. What is really disturbing is that despite several judgments, the position in the school and college campuses in the State remains to be the same and the institutions are constrained to approach this court even now for police aid so as to enable the students to pursue their education without external and internal disturbances. In other words, the pain and efforts taken by this court in similar matters have become a futile exercise. It is also relevant to note that an approach to this court for police aid is made only by private educational institutions. As far as Government and quasi Government institutions are concerned, the position is that students have to forego their studies until the disturbances and disruptions settle down naturally. The students pursuing studies in such institutions are therefore generally the victims of the student unrest in the campuses. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the Director of Collegiate Education, the Director General of Education and also the Registrars of the various Universities in the State to bring this judgment to the notice of the Heads of the educational institutions functioning under them, and direct them to bring the external and internal disturbances affecting the conduct of the classes forthwith to the notice of the police for necessary aid and to ensure that academic and other activities in the campuses are not affected in any manner. The authorities aforesaid are also directed to ensure compliance of the directions by appropriate means. The authorities aforesaid are also directed to ensure compliance of the directions by appropriate means. There will also be a direction to the State Police Chief to bring this judgment to the notice of the police officers concerned in the State with a direction to extend police aid for the smooth conduct of the educational institutions as and when requested for either orally or in writing by the Head of the institutions. The State Police Chief is also directed to ensure compliance of the directions by appropriate means. Registry shall forward copies of this judgment for compliance to the Director of Collegiate Education, the Director General of Education, the Registrars of the various Universities in the State as also to the State Police Chief.