The Delhi High Court stayed Friday the order of St Stephen’s College principal Valson Thampu suspending the student editor of its banned e-magazine for “breach in college discipline”, and asked the college and Delhi University whether anyone can be suspended for “speaking to the media”.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru, who issued a stay on the one-week suspension of third-year philosophy student Devansh Mehta, said: “Let us assume he had spoken to the media, so why would you suspend him?”
The court, which also stayed the report of the one-man inquiry committee that had found Mehta guilty of “indiscipline”, issued notice to the college and the university to reply to the plea by May 21.
It directed the college not to give an award, the list of which included Mehta but dropped later due to the controversy, to anyone till the next date of hearing.
Following the court directions, Thampu told The Indian Express, “I have utmost respect for the court and will follow its decision.”
St Stephen’s issued suspension orders against Mehta on April 15 after a controversy over a ban imposed on an e-magazine started by Mehta and three other students.
Mehta challenged the suspension as well as the order banning the publication of St Stephen’s Weekly saying these violated his right to free speech.
He also challenged the withdrawal of a college award for academics for which his name had been recommended by the philosophy department. In his petition, he alleged that decisions taken by principal Thampu were “arbitrary and unreasonable”.
During a hearing Friday, Mehta’s counsel Sunil Matthew argued that decisions of the college administration had been “vindictive” and had “attempted to strip” Mehta of the Rai Sahib Banarsidas Memorial Prize.
The court directed that the award not be given to any student till the plea is disposed. “Coercive orders are necessary to protect the interest of the petitioner. If the award is awarded to another candidate, it will not be feasible to withdraw it,” Justice Bakhru said.
Mehta’s petition stated he was “aggrieved by the arbitrary and unreasonable” actions of Thampu and any attempt to “stifle” the fundamental right of freedom of speech would “sound a death knell for democracy” and “would help usher in dictatorship”.
He challenged the one-man inquiry committee — it had a senior tutor of the college — claiming that “the principal participated by framing the terms of the inquiry and initiating the inquiry by appointing a one-man committee. It is settled in law that the complainant cannot be a party to the decision-making process.”
During the brief hearing, the court asked the student whether proper notice of the inquiry had been given and whether any terms of reference had been framed by the tutor before conducting the inquiry.
In his petition, Mehta also argued that “even if” he had “indeed” published the interview of the principal “without his approval” and the “same not being defamatory in nature”, such action cannot be regarded as “defamatory to warrant such serious action” …continued »

Indian Express | April 18, 2015

Contact Lawyers In India : https://lawintellectindia.com/contact-us/