On 22 February, students at the University of Lucknow reported that Lal Baradari had been sealed. According to students present at the site, no executive order was displayed, no formal administrative notification was circulated, and no structural stability report was publicly produced at the time. The gates were welded shut, and explanations were reportedly conveyed orally rather than through written documentation.
Lal Baradari, estimated to be nearly 200 years old, predates the university and has historically been used by Muslim students for offering namaz. As a recognised heritage structure within a public university, any restriction on access may raise constitutional considerations. Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution address equality before law and freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. Legal doctrines generally require that restrictions should be lawful, necessary, proportionate, and supported by reasoned orders.
Students questioned whether there were any structural safety concerns, if any, had been documented. They called for the public production of any structural audit, emergency order, or consultation with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), if such processes were undertaken.
Subsequently, preventive notices were reportedly served under Sections 126 and 135 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Critics argue that preventive provisions are intended to address imminent threats to peace and that their use in response to demands for documentation may raise concerns about proportionality. The administration has not publicly detailed its justification at the time of writing.
The timing of the sealing, during the month of Ramzan, has intensified student concerns. Muslim students observed that access to a historically used prayer space was restricted during a period of heightened religious significance. Some have argued that, in the absence of publicly available documentation citing urgent health or safety risks, the measure appears disproportionate.
Further controversy emerged when calls circulated for a “shuddhikaran” programme involving collective recitation of the Hanuman Chalisa at the same site. Critics argue that the language used in such calls can carry symbolic weight in India’s socio-political context. Supporters, however, may interpret it as an expression of religious devotion. The administration’s handling of these developments has drawn scrutiny from multiple student groups.
Comparisons have also been drawn to the recent facilitation of visits by political or ideological figures, including RSS Chief, Mohan Bhagwat, to the campus under heavy security arrangements. Some students argue that differing administrative responses in such situations raise questions about consistency in the application of policy.
The central issue, according to protesting students, is transparency. They have demanded the production of any sealing order, structural safety report, and clarification regarding ASI consultation. They have also called for withdrawal of preventive proceedings against peaceful demonstrators and for reopening of Lal Baradari pending formal review.
Images circulating from the campus show students offering namaz while others stood nearby in solidarity. For many, these scenes have come to symbolise what they describe as constitutional fraternity and inter-student unity.
The broader debate concerns the balance between public order, institutional authority, and constitutional freedoms within university spaces. Whether the sealing of Lal Baradari was legally justified or administratively excessive remains a matter that, students argue, requires transparent documentation and dialogue.