‘Freedom of expression’: AUD professor rejects varsity’s accusation of delivering ‘provocative speech’

The faculty member was among the speakers at a public meeting held following the March 21 controversial suspension of a postgraduate female student, a member of the All India Students’ Association (AISA), for criticising Vice-Chancellor Anu Singh Lather’s Republic Day speech. The meeting, held by a student group in front of the V-C’s office on March 24, saw participation by students as well as professors. Amid rising tension on the varsity campus over the issue, an indefinite sit-in protest against the student’s suspension began on Tuesday.

Ahead of the March 24 meeting, posters had circulated in advance, identifying the faculty member as one of the speakers at the event, and media reports later confirmed his participation, the varsity said. In its notice, the university further claimed that the associate professor’s “provocative speech encouraged the students to create indiscipline and nuisance, resulting in the disorder of the management due to which the university administration was compelled to seek the intervention of police”.

The show cause notice also claimed that “the protest resulted in a significant disruption of the university’s routine operations and the campus was overtaken by protestors with pathways blocked and a march proceeding from the Canteen to the Vice-Chancellor’s office.”

As per the notice, the associate professor was found in violation of provisions of Rule 3(1) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and Statute 22 of the First Statute of the B.R. Ambedkar University Delhi Act, 2007. Rule 3(1) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, mandates that every government servant must maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, and do nothing unbecoming of a government servant.

The notice stated that the faculty’s actions “reflect doubtful integrity, against the interest of the institution, disturbing public order, decency and morality and contrary to the rules, regulations and established practices of the institution.”

According to the associate professor, he spoke of the recent spate of suspensions on campus, of which 7-8 were students of School of Global Affairs. Speaking on the revocation of at least six of those suspensions the associate professor said, “Since it came out in the media that the Proctorial Board had not recommended suspension, but the Proctor had issued suspension notices, nonetheless”

In his response to the varsity, the associate professor refuted the allegations of raking up sentiments at the gathering. He stated that he spoke at the public meeting for about 20 minutes, addressing concerns over recent student suspensions, some of which had been revoked after media scrutiny.

“I arrived at the Kashmere Gate campus around 2 pm and found the main gate locked with police already stationed outside. I entered through an alternative route and observed barricades set up near the Vice-Chancellor’s office. I addressed the gathering on student rights and left shortly after to take my scheduled class at the Karampura campus,” read the response.

Challenging the claim that his speech was responsible for disruption, he contended that the police barricades were set up before his arrival. “Also, since the police had been called by the administration and the university security had themselves put up barricades, thus obstructing the passage of your car and that of the Vice-Chancellor, the charge of my speech causing such an inconvenience is rather contrary to evidence,” read the response.

“The allegations against me seem to be an effort to stifle open discussions on university governance and student rights. Addressing students cannot be construed as misconduct,” he emphasised.

“Regarding the show cause notice issued to a faculty member, the university follows all due procedures before arriving at any decision,” underlined the varsity in a statement on Wednesday. The varsity, in its statement, also referred to a previous email from the Dean of Academic Affairs to report classroom disruptions caused by students or student collectives, said that the “communication was issued in response to complaints received from students to ensure that the academic environment remains undisturbed.”