The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, April 18, asked Delhi University (DU) to file its response to a student's plea challenging his debarment, for alleged involvement in the screening of the controversial BBC documentary on Prime Minister Modi on the campus. The court observed that the DU order does not reflect an independent application of mind.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav granted three days to DU to file its counter affidavit. The court said that the disciplinary authority ought to have afforded an opportunity to Lokesh Chugh, PhD scholar at DU and NSUI National Secretary, to be heard and considered his stand, as per a report by PTI.
"There has to be an independent application of mind by DU. It is not reflected in the order. You are a statutory authority. You are a university. Impugned order does not reflect the application of mind. Impugned order must reflect the reasoning (sic)," the judge remarked.
The petitioner had approached the high court earlier this month challenging the varsity's decision to debar him for a year for his alleged involvement in the screening of the documentary on PM Modi. The documentary was screened earlier this year.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Vivek Tankha, who represented the petitioner, emphasised that he was not allowed to be heard. They contended that the DU order does not reflect the material on which it was based.
The petitioner, also represented by Advocate Naman Joshi, claimed in his plea that he was not even present at the site of the alleged screening and the authorities had acted against him with a "premeditated mind". He has also sought permission to submit his PhD thesis and take university examinations during the pendency of the petition.
The senior advocates informed the court that the petitioner is required to submit his thesis before April 30, to which the court replied that it would protect the interests of the parties and, if required, could always direct acceptance of the thesis at a later stage.
"On 27.01.2023, there was a protest organized by a few students at the Faculty of Arts (Main Campus), University of Delhi. During this protest, an allegedly banned BBC Documentary i.e. India: the Modi Question was screened for public viewing. At the relevant time, the Petitioner was not present at the protest site, neither had facilitated/participated in the screening in any manner," the petition reads, as per PTI.
Thus, it claims that the DU order is liable to be set aside for the absence of findings on any specific ground of indiscipline as well as for non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice. The petition also mentions that there was no binding prohibition on the screening of the said documentary.
"Respondent No 3 (Proctor) while issuing the SCN (show cause notice) operated in a premeditated manner in so far as she had voiced her public opinion against the protests despite there being no material on record to show Petitioner's involvement in the screening of the BBC Documentary," the document states further.
"The Impugned Memorandum notably suggests that there is a ban on showing the BBC documentary by Govt of India, which was taken cognizance by the Proctor, University of Delhi. However, to the knowledge of the Petitioner, there is no prohibition on screening of the BBC documentary," it added.
Chugh has also alleged bias against him on the grounds that six other students allegedly involved in the incident have been asked to submit only a written apology while he has been debarred. The plea also says that while the police detained a few students over the alleged screening, Chugh was neither detained nor charged with any form of incitement, violence, or disturbance of the peace.
"The Petitioner is a sincere and meritorious student of DU and has an exemplary academic record. Therefore the Impugned Memorandum is likely to rob the Petitioner of various academic and professional opportunities. Surely, the alleged screening of the BBC Documentary cannot be a reason to deny the Petitioner a chance at academic excellence," the petition says.
On the other hand, Advocate M Rupal, appearing on behalf of DU, furnished the original record pertaining to the proceedings against Chugh before the court and said that all circumstances were taken into account by the authorities before passing the debarment order. The court, however, said that the university "was trying to supplement reasoning" at this stage, while listing the case for further consideration on April 24, as per PTI.
