Delhi HC sets aside DU’s order debarring PhD student over BBC documentary screening

“The court is unable to sustain the impugned order dated March 10, 2023. Impugned order is set aside. The admission of the petitioner is restored. Necessary consequences will follow,” the HC said.

It further observed, “The perusal of impugned order indicates certain events that have taken place and as to whether petitioner was present at the time of screening of banned BBC documentary or not, it is not reflected… The petitioner has not been specifically called upon to explain the allegations which form part of the impugned order. The reasons are necessary to be assigned by the administrative authority,” the HC said.

Appearing for DU, Attorney General R Venkataramani said Chugh had approached the HC with “unclean hands” and had made a “completely false” statement that he was not present at the time of screening.

The AG said a committee was constituted to look into the incident and Chugh was served with a show cause notice and given an opportunity to explain his conduct.

Appearing for Chugh, senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the debarment order cannot be sustained on account of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and DU cannot “supplement” reasons behind it at this stage.

The AG further said that to say DU acted in an arbitrary manner is “untenable” and that there was already a notice which mandates prior intimation to the proctor if a protest was to be staged.

Previously, the court had orally said that “order must reflect reasoning”.

However, the High Court Thursday clarified that since the debarment order was being set aside for a lack of adherence to the principle of natural justice, DU is free to take action against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure.

In his plea, Chugh states there was a protest organised on January 27 by a few students at the Faculty of Arts (Main Campus), University of Delhi, to screen the documentary. The plea states that at the relevant time, Chugh was neither present at the protest site nor had participated in the screening in any manner.

Chugh’s plea further states that he was giving a live interview during a media interaction outside the Faculty of Arts at the time and the police, which had detained certain students for disturbing peace in the area, had never detained or charged him for any sort of incitement or violence or disturbance of peace.

The plea states that on February 16, he was issued a show cause notice by the DU Proctor on why action should not be taken against him for his alleged involvement in law and order disturbance during the incident. Chugh’s plea states that he submitted his response on February 20.

On March 3, he submitted his PhD thesis and on March 10, the DU Registrar issued a memorandum imposing a penalty of debarment from taking any university, college or departmental exam for one year.

The plea states that neither the disciplinary authority nor the March 10 memorandum has given any finding on the indiscipline attributed to him. He claimed in the plea that he was neither informed about the formation of any such committee by the disciplinary authority nor called to appear before such a committee to put forth his submissions.
The plea also states that Chugh was not afforded any opportunity to explain his conduct to the committee, and therefore, any order taken against him, in consequence, is in utter disregard of the rules of natural justice.

DU, in its reply, had said the competent authority took cognizance of the incident and constituted a committee, including the Proctor and other senior academicians, to enquire into and initiate disciplinary proceedings against the wrong doers. The committee after watching the videos found that the “mastermind of the agitation” was Chugh, the reply states.

The reply states that before being meted out the punishment Chugh was issued a show-cause notice and was also granted a personal hearing by the Disciplinary Committee. The recommendations of the Committee were placed before the Competent Authority, which is the Vice-Chancellor, who considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances and directed the issuance memorandum of March 10.