BBC row: Phd student Lokesh Chugh ‘mastermind’ of Jan 27 agitation, says DU

Delhi University (DU) PhD student Lokesh Chugh has been debarred from taking the university examination for one year for allegedly screening the banned BBC documentary on PM Narendra Modi

Delhi University (DU) PhD student Lokesh Chugh, who has been debarred from taking the university examination for one year for allegedly screening the banned BBC documentary on PM Narendra Modi, was the “mastermind of the agitation” at the university which broke out in January, DU has told the Delhi high court.

Protests erupted at DU’s Arts faculty on January 27 after police detained at least 24 students attempting to screen the controversial BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots (File Photo)

Protests erupted at DU’s Arts faculty on January 27 after police detained at least 24 students attempting to screen the controversial BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots, ‘India: The Modi Question’.

The documentary sparked a controversy with the central government banning it as “propaganda” and a reflection of a “colonial mindset.”

In his plea filed on April 13, Chugh has challenged the memorandum passed by the office of the university registrar debarring him from taking the examinations. He has 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.

On April 13, the court issued a notice to the university and asked it to respond to Chugh’s plea. Further, in last week’s hearing, the court granted the university three days to file its response and posted the matter for hearing next on April 24.

The varsity, in its counter affidavit in response to Chugh’s plea, has said that the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands, adding that the petitioner has not given any documentary proof to show that he was participating in a live TV debate at the time of the incident.

“The video footage available with DU would show the complicity and the support of the petitioner (Chugh) to such a protest. It is denied that the petitioner was not present at the protest site. The said video footage would show the presence of the petitioner at the site protest and his complicity in the entire incident,” DU has said in its response.

“Merely because the petitioner was able to escape from the police detention on the date of the incident does not absolve the petitioner from acts of indiscipline and disrupting the academic functioning of the university system, “ the university’s reply added.

In his plea, filed through advocate Naman Joshi, Chugh has contended that he is a PhD research scholar at the Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Science, University of Delhi.

The plea has said that on January 27, 2023, there was a protest organized by a few students at the Faculty of Arts (main campus), DU. During this protest, an allegedly banned BBC Documentary i.e. “India: the Modi Question” was screened for public viewing.

Chugh, through his counsel, has contended that even though he was not present at the protest site and neither facilitated/participated in the screening in any manner, the university has barred him from taking any examination for one year.

“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 inside the Faculty of Arts (main campus). Thereafter, police detained a few students for screening the allegedly banned BBC 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 the peace by the police,” the plea said.

The petition further said 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 further contended that despite having replied to the show cause notice detailing his absence from the spot and submitting his thesis in March, he was handed over the debarment action.

The varsity has 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.

“The petitioner from the video footage available with the University of Delhi was actively involved in the attempt to the screening of the BBC documentary, in the university campus, with the intention to disrupt the academic functioning of the university system, even otherwise, such an act on his part amounts to gross indiscipline in general, without the permission of university authority, “ the reply from the university stated.

The varsity has further said that Chugh, as well as others, had assembled even after section 144 CrPC was in force.

“This act itself amounts to gross indiscipline on the part of the petitioner and others against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated. It is pertinent to mention that Section 144 CrPC was imposed on the University campus w.e.f. December 31, 2022, to February 28, 2023, by the police and petitioner, as per the video footage, is seen along with others assembled and actively being part of the unlawful assembly, “ the university asserted.

DU has further said that the punishment recommended by the disciplinary committee was for the expulsion of Chugh, but the vice-chancellor, who is the competent authority, by taking a sympathetic approach, has only punished debarring the petitioner for one year from taking any university or college or departmental examination for one year.

Alleging that Chugh’s debarment is the result of his own doing, DU has said that the petitioner ought not to have indulged in such acts of indiscipline, while also adding that he is not a serious student.

On Monday, justice Purushaindra Kaurav posted the matter for Wednesday noting that DU’ counter affidavit was not on record.