Screening banned BBC documentary amounted to ‘gross indiscipline’, DU tells Delhi HC

New Delhi: The Delhi University (DU) told the High Court on Monday that the action of students screening the banned BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi without permission, and organising protests, despite imposition of prohibitory orders, amounts to “gross indiscipline”.

A bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was hearing a plea by the national Secretary of Congress’ student wing, NSUI, Lokesh Chugh challenging his debarment from the university on allegations that he organised a screening of the BBC documentary.

“We acted against the students who organised the screening of the documentary based on the newspaper reports which said that the two-part series has been banned in India,” the university submitted.

“Chugh was the mastermind behind the agitation and that video footage shows that he was actively involved in the screening of the documentary in the University campus,” the DU counsel added.

The intention to disrupt the academic functioning of the University has tarnished the image of the University, it was contended.

The DU apprised the court that Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was imposed by the police on that date despite which students protested.

“The Committee after watching the videos found that the mastermind of the agitation was the petitioner. It was observed by the committee that around 20 students had gathered at 4 p.m. to showcase the BBC documentary and around 50 more students were there to watch the said documentary.”

It was noted by the court that DU’s response and Chugh’s counter are not on record and accordingly listed the case for next hearing on April 26 while asking both counsel to file their written submissions by Tuesday.

The DU has prohibited Chugh, of the National Students Union of India (NSUI) and a Ph.D. research scholar at the Department of Anthropology, from taking any university, college, or departmental exams.

During the last hearing, Justice Kaurav had remarked that the university’s order did not reflect application of mind.

“There has to be an independent application of mind which is not reflected in the order… The order must reflect the reasoning,” the court said.

Appearing on behalf of the DU, lawyer Mohinder Rupal had said that the university’s decision was based on some documents that he wishes to provide, while Chugh’s counsel had claimed that there is considerable urgency in the situation because the deadline for turning in his PhD thesis is April 30.

Justice Kaurav had responded that once the petitioner is before the court, his rights would be protected.

“Mr Mohinder Rupal seeks time to file counter affidavit. Let the same be done in three working days. Petitioner is also at liberty to file the rejoinder in two days thereafter. List on Monday,” the court had ordered.

The case pertains to a protest that was planned for January 27, 2023, on the DU campus during which, the BBC documentary ‘India: The Modi Question’ was also shown to the general audience.

Chugh claims in his plea that he was not even there during the protest since he was attending a media interaction.

“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 was neither detained nor charged with any form of incitement or violence or disturbance of peace by the police,” he stated.

However, the DU served him with a show-cause notice on February 16 alleging that he had disrupted law and order at the university during the screening. On March 10, a memorandum debarring him was then issued.

In his plea, Chugh claims that the university’s order against him went against the principles of natural justice and that the disciplinary authorities failed to even inform him of the allegations and charges against him. Therefore, Chugh demanded that the memorandum and notice that claim he was complicit in a breach of law and order be set aside. He has asked for a stay of the memorandum in the interim.