NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Thursday set aside Delhi University’s order that debarred a Congress student wing leader for a year from taking examinations for his alleged role in screening of a banned BBC documentary, India: The Modi Question, related to the 2002 Godhra riots which was critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi who was then Gujarat CM.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted that the action against Lokesh Chugh, a PhD scholar and NSUI national secretary was in violation of the principle of natural justice and the university’s order was passed without offering him an opportunity of hearing his explanation.
“The court cannot sustain the impugned order dated March 10, 2023. The impugned order is set aside. The admission of the petitioner is restored. Necessary consequences will follow,” Justice Kaurav ordered.
The court clarified since the debarment order was being set aside for non-adherence to the principle of natural justice, the university is free to take action against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure.
Opposing Chugh, Attorney General (AG) R. Venkataramani, who appeared on behalf of DU, said the petitioner has approached the court with “unclean hands” and had 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 observed the committee’s report records its findings but “does not deal with the explanation, if any, given by the petitioner” and 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 said 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.
The perusal of impugned order indicates certain events that have taken place and as to whether petitioner was present at the time of screening of banned BBC documentary or not, it is not reflected,” the court said.
“The petitioner has not been specifically called upon to explain the allegations which form part of the impugned order. The reasons are necessary to be assigned by the administrative authority,” stated the court.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the petitioner. He argued that the debarment order cannot be sustained for non-compliance with the principle of natural justice and DU cannot “supplement” reasons behind it at this stage.