NEW DELHI: Dealing a Congress students’ wing leader’s plea against his debarment of exams for alleged involvement in the screening of a banned BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the campus, the Delhi High Court observed that the Delhi University’s order does not reflect the independent application of mind.
Seeking the university’s response in the matter, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav granted three days’ time to the university to reply to the challenge of the petitioner Lokesh Chugh, a PhD scholar and NSUI national secretary.
As per the High Court, the disciplinary authority ought to have afforded an opportunity for the student to be heard and considered his stand. “There has to be an independent application of mind by DU. It is not reflected in the order. You are a statutory authority. You are a university. The impugned order does not reflect the application of the mind. Impugned order must reflect the reasoning,” the judge remarked.
The plea was filed following the varsity’s decision to debar him for one year for his alleged involvement in the screening of the documentary India: The Modi Question related to the Godhra riots. Advocate M Rupal, appearing for the DU, furnished the original record pertaining to the proceedings against the petitioner before the court and said all circumstances were taken into account before passing the debarment order.
The court, however, said the university “was trying to supplement reasoning” at this stage and asked the authorities to file a reply while listing the case for further consideration on April 24. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Vivek Tankha, who represented the petitioner, emphasised he was not given an opportunity to be heard. They contended the order does not reflect the material on which it was based. They told the
court the petitioner is required to submit his thesis before April 30.
The court said it will protect the interests of the parties before it and if required, it can always direct acceptance of the thesis at a later stage. The petitioner, also represented by lawyer Naman Joshi, has claimed in his plea he was not even present at the site of the alleged screening and that the authorities had acted against him with a “premeditated mind”. He has also sought permission to submit his thesis and take university examinations during the pendency of the petition.