Delhi HC sets aside DU’s order to debar student over BBC film

Delhi High Court has set aside Delhi University's order barring PhD scholar Lokesh Chugh from taking any examination for a year over his alleged role in screening a BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots. The university did not offer Chugh an opportunity to be heard, the court said.

New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Thursday set aside the Delhi University’s order debarring PhD scholar Lokesh Chugh from taking any examination for one year over his alleged role in screening a BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots at the Faculty of Arts on January 27, saying that the varsity did not offer him an opportunity to be heard.

Lokesh Chugh had moved the high court against the debarment order on April 13, contending that he was not present at the protest site and did not facilitate or participate in the screening in any way. (HT Archive)

“From a perusal of the facts of the present case, the court finds that the impugned order has been passed without offering an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or considering his explanation,” justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.

Lokesh Chugh, national secretary of the Congress-affiliated National Student’s Union of India, is a PhD research scholar in the Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Science. He had moved the high court against the debarment order on April 13, contending that he was not present at the protest site and did not facilitate or participate in the screening in any way. He claimed that he was participating in a media interaction outside the Faculty of Arts (main campus) at the time of the protest.

Justice Kaurav, however, ordered, “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 court said since the debarment order was being set aside for a lack of adherence to the principles of natural justice, the university is free to take action against the petitioner in accordance with the law.

On April 18, while asking DU to file an affidavit in response to Chugh’s plea, the court had said that there has to be an “independent application of mind by the university” that is not reflected in the [debarment] order.

Protests erupted at DU’s Arts faculty on January 27 after police detained at least 24 students attempting to screen the controversial BBC documentary, ‘India: The Modi Question’. The documentary sparked a backlash, with the central government declaring it “propaganda” and reflection of a “colonial mindset”.

During the hearing, attorney general (AG) R Venkatramani opposed Chugh’s plea and said the petitioner had approached the court with “unclean hands” and has made a “completely false” statement that he was not present at the time of the screening. He said a committee was constituted to look into the incident and the petitioner, who was served a show-cause notice, was given an opportunity to explain his conduct.

The court, however, rejected the argument, and said that the committee’s report records its findings but “does not deal with the explanation, if any, given by the petitioner”. It said that the minutes of the meeting clearly indicate the petitioner’s presence but the “clarification given by him has not been mentioned or dealt with”.

It added that there is no consideration of the submissions by the petitioner in the debarment order and he was also not specifically asked to explain the allegations.

Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for Chugh, argued that the petitioner was not at the spot when the documentary was screened.