Delhi HC sets aside DU order to debar PhD scholar over BBC documentary screening

The Delhi University defended the decision to debar Lokesh Chugh, saying the disciplinary committee recommended that Chugh be expelled, but the vice-chancellor took a sympathetic approach

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Thursday set aside the Delhi University’s order that debarred a PhD scholar Lokesh Chugh from taking any examination for one over his alleged role in screening a BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots at the faculty of arts on January 27

Lokesh Chugh, national secretary of the Congress-affiliated National Student’s Union of India, is a PhD research scholar at the Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Science (File Photo)

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said the show cause notice issued to Chugh and the hearing given to him, did not comply with the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.

“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 high court said.

Justice Kaurav underlined that 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.

Chugh, national secretary of the Congress-affiliated National Student’s Union of India, is a PhD research scholar at the Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Science. In his plea on April 13 through adocate Naman Joshi, Chugh challenged the memorandum issued by the DU registrar that debarred him from taking any departmental or university examination for one year. He also challenged the show cause notice issued by the office of the Proctor on February 16 which held that he was involved in a “disturbance of law and order” during the screening.

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

The university, however, told the high court in its counter affidavit that Chugh was the mastermind of the stir at the university. It alleged that rather than concentrating on his research, Chugh was indulging in campus politics and instrumental in inciting the other students and indulging in petty politics which are detrimental to the university discipline.

DU also said that the disciplinary committee recommended that Chugh be expelled, but the vice-chancellor, the competent authority, took a sympathetic approach and only punished the petitioner by barring him from taking any university, college, or departmental examination for one year.