BBC drama: High court notice to Delhi University on student’s plea
Chugh, through his counsel, contended that even though he was not present at the protest site or facilitated/participated in the screening in any manner, the university had barred him from taking any examination for one year
The Delhi high court on Thursday sought the response of the Delhi University (DU) on a plea filed by a PhD student Lokesh Chugh against being barred from taking any examination for one year, for allegedly screening a banned BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the faculty of arts on January 27.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav issued a notice to the varsity on Chugh’s plea and posted the matter for hearing on April 18.
In his plea, filed through advocate Naman Joshi, Chugh, a PhD research scholar at the department of anthropology, faculty of science, University of Delhi, said on January 27, 2023, there was a protest organised by a few students at the faculty of arts (main campus), University of Delhi. During this protest, a banned BBC documentary–India: the Modi Question–was allegedly screened for public viewing.
Chugh, through his counsel, contended that even though he was not present at the protest site or facilitated/participated in the screening in any manner, the university had barred him from taking any examination for one year.
“In fact, the petitioner was at a media interaction outside the faculty of arts (main campus) when the protest took place. Pertinently, the petitioner was giving a live interview at the time when the documentary was being screened. Thereafter, police detained a few students for screening the documentary and subsequently charged them for disturbance of peace in the area. Notably, the petitioner (Chugh) was neither detained nor charged with any form of incitement or violence or disturbance of peace by the police,” the plea said.
The petition added that to the utter shock and dismay of the petitioner, he was served a show cause notice by the proctor asking him to reply within three days about his alleged involvement in the screening and subsequent protest.
Chugh contended that despite having replied to the show cause notice detailing his absence from the spot and submitting his thesis in March, he was debarred.
He said that neither the disciplinary authority/committee nor the impugned memorandum has given any finding as to what indiscipline is attributed to the petitioner.