New Delhi, April 24: The Delhi University on Monday filed a response before Delhi High Court on a plea moved by NSUI's National Secretary Lokesh Chugh and said that the screening of a banned BBC documentary on the campus amounts to gross Indiscipline. Chugh has challenged his debarment for one year by the Delhi University (DU).

After noting that the response of the respondent and the petitioner is not on record, the matter was listed on Wednesday before the bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav. BBC Documentary Row: Section 144 Imposed at Delhi University, Huge Security Ahead of NSUI Screening ‘India: The Modi Question’.

It is submitted that 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, on the University campus, with the intention to disrupt the academic functioning of the University system, even otherwise, such an act on the part of the Petitioner amounts to gross indiscipline in general, without the permission of the University.

The affidavit filed submitted stated, "The Committee after watching the videos found that the mastermind of the agitation was the Petitioner."

Earlier, the High Court asked Delhi University to file its response within three days on a plea moved by the National Secretary of NSUI challenging his debarment for one year by the University of Delhi.

He has been debarred by the DU over the screening of a banned BBC documentary on campus in January this year. Earlier on April 13, the Delhi High Court issued a notice on the plea.

During the hearing on April 18, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that University's order doesn't reflect any application of mind. It must reflect the reasoning. While arguing for the University of Delhi, advocate Mohinder Rypal said that he want to produce some documents on the basis of which the decision was taken.

On the other hand, Counsel for Lokesh Chugh submitted that the last date for submission of PhD thesis is April 30. There is an urgency in the matter. The court said that once the petitioner is before the court, his right would be protected. The court directed the DU to file a counter affidavit within three days. The petitioner may file the rejoinder two days thereafter. Now the matter has been listed on Monday. DU Bars NSUI Leader, Another Student for Year over 'banned' BBC Documentary Screening Attempt.

It has been submitted that on 27.01.2023, there was a protest organised by a few students at the Faculty of Arts (Main Campus), University of Delhi. During this protest, an allegedly banned BBC Documentary namely "India: the Modi Question" was screened for public viewing.

At the relevant time, the Petitioner was not present at the protest site, nor had facilitated or participated in the screening in any manner, the plea said. Chugh, a PhD scholar stated in the plea that he 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 charged them with disturbing the peace in the area.

The plea stated that Chugh was neither detained nor charged with any form of incitement or violence or disturbance of the peace by the police. It is submitted that he was issued a Show cause notice by the Proctor to show cause why action should not be taken against him for his alleged involvement in law and order disturbance during the screening of the documentary.

He filed a reply on the notice on February 20, the plea stated.

It is also stated that he submitted his PhD thesis on March 3, 2023. Thereafter, On March 10, the Registrar issued a Memorandum imposing a penalty of debarment from taking any University, College, or Departmental Examinations for one year, the plea said.

It is also submitted that neither the Disciplinary Authority/Committee nor the said Memorandum has given any finding as to what indiscipline is attributed to the Petitioner. It is also said the order of debarment is against the natural principle of justice as the Petitioner was not given to explain his conduct. Holding him guilty of indiscipline is based on biased premises as other student participants have been asked to file a written apology, the pleas.

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)