The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought the Delhi University’s response to a petition filed by PhD Scholar and National Secretary of the National Students’ Union of India Lokesh Chugh against his one-year suspension from the university for his alleged involvement in the screening of a recent BBC documentary on PM Narendra Modi and his alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat riots.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav granted the varsity three days to file a counter-affidavit and scheduled the case for hearing on April 24. The court also allowed Chugh to file his rejoinder.
Chugh has challenged the memorandum passed by the University’s Registrar on March 10 that barred him from taking the exams for a period of one year.
He has also contested the show cause notice issued by the Proctor’s office on February 16 that stated he was involved in a disturbance of law and order at the university during the screening of the documentary.
The petition also seeks a direction that Chugh be allowed to undertake the examinations.
During the hearing, the judge stated that the impugned order does not reflect the University’s application of mind.
“There must be independent application of mind by the University. It is not reflected in the order,” Justice Kaurav informed the counsel for the varsity.
“You are a statutory body. You are a university. The impugned order demonstrates a lack of application of mind. It must have reflected why you arrived at your conclusion. You file your counter because you want to rely on specific evidence. That material must be supplied to the petitioner,” he added.
In the plea, Chugh’s lawyers, Naman Joshi and Ritika Vohra, claim that he was neither detained or charged with any type of provocation, violence, or disturbance of peace by the police.
“At the relevant time, the Petitioner was not present at the protest site, nor had he facilitated/participated in the screening in any way,” the plea stated.
It has been claimed that the memorandum is subject to be set aside for absence of finding on any specific cause of indiscipline, as well as for non- application of mind.
The plea further claimed that Chugh was not given an opportunity to defend his actions to the Disciplinary Committee, and so any order or judgement against him violates natural justice principles.
“It is humbly submitted that the petitioner was not informed of the Disciplinary Authority’s charges/findings against him. It is also worth noting that the Impugned Memorandum is silent on how the Petitioner was involved in the incident on January 27, 2023. The Impugned Memorandum only mentions Petitioner’s alleged involvement in screening of BBC Documentary in passing,” it stated.
It is also Chugh’s case that the University authorities took “disproportionate action” against him by debarring him for one year, despite the fact that he was never given the opportunity to present his case before the Disciplinary Committee or to examine the material placed before it.
