‘Order must reflect reasoning’: Delhi HC gives DU 3 days to respond to debarred PhD scholar’s plea over BBC documentary screening

The court thereafter directed DU to file a counter affidavit “within three working days” and granted the petitioner Lokesh Chugh, who is the national secretary of the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), two further days to file his response to DU’s reply. The matter has been listed on April 24.

DU’s counsel advocate M Rupal submitted the original record pertaining to the proceedings against Chugh and stated that all circumstances were taken into account by the authorities before passing the debarment order. The HC however said that DU was trying to “supplement reasoning” at this stage and asked the authorities to file a reply.

Chugh’s plea states that on January 27 there was a protest organised by a few students at the Faculty of Arts (Main Campus) University of Delhi during which the “allegedly banned BBC documentary ‘India: The Modi Question’ was screened for public viewing”. The plea states that Chugh was not present at the protest site at the relevant time, neither had he participated in the screening in any manner. The petitioner is pursuing his PhD at the Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Science.

Chugh’s plea states that he was giving a live interview in a media interaction outside the Faculty of Arts when the documentary was being screened and the police, who 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 proctor on why action should not be taken against him for his alleged involvement in law and order disturbance during the screening of the documentary. 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 registrar issued him a memorandum imposing a penalty of debarment from taking any university/college/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.

“The Impugned Memorandum proceeds on the assumption that the Disciplinary Authority formed vide Notification No. RO/2023/R- 4355 dated 28.01.2023 to specifically look into the incident which took place on 27.01.2023. However, this Notification dated 28.01.2023 is not available in the public domain. Moreover, Petitioner was neither informed about the formation of any such Committee by the Disciplinary Authority nor called to appear before such Committee to put forth his submissions,” the plea says.

The plea further asserts that Chugh was not afforded any opportunity to explain his conduct to the committee, and therefore, any order taken against him in consequence thereof is in utter disregard of the rules of natural justice. The plea states that the debarment memorandum is “silent” on how Chugh was involved in the January 27 incident as it only makes “a passing reference” to his alleged involvement in the screening of the documentary.

The plea contends that the memorandum proceeds on a “biased premise”, holding Chugh guilty of indiscipline on the basis of his alleged participation in the screening of the BBC Documentary, whereas, other alleged participants have been asked to submit only a written apology.

The plea prays to set aside the March 10 memorandum, quash the February 16 show-cause notice, expunge the remarks made against Chugh in the disciplinary proceedings as well as stay the memorandum during the pendency of the plea. It further seeks permission for Chugh to undertake the university/departmental exams.