Visva Bharati authorities on Friday justified its disciplinary action of suspending student leader Somnath Sow on grounds that he had “trespassed the Laxman Rekha” and that it was “morally” incumbent on the university to “carve out a course correction for the deviant student”.

The university also claimed that in the course of meting out that punishment, “the principle of natural justice was complied with” since the student was given “chances to explain his point of view”.

Sow was suspended on Thursday for one semester, which effectively translates to the student pursuing his Masters in Rural Management facing a setback for a whole year, perceptively because he supported Professor Amartya Sen over social media in the latter’s on-going land dispute with the Visva Bharati. Although the student, a popular SFI activist in the university, would be appearing for his second-semester exams which would begin from July 31 and continue till August 11, he has been barred from participating in academic activities for the entire third semester.

The show cause notices to Somnath, earlier issued by the university, stated that his Facebook posts were “full of false/misleading information, contrary to official records and official position of Visva-Bharati” and that by doing so he had “attempted to denigrate, defame and derogate Visva Bharati as an institution and also its functionaries/officials and staff”.

“Records from the office of the block land and land revenue officers say the owner (lessee) of 1.38 acres of land is Ashutosh Sen, father of professor Amartya Sen. Then was he (Sen) targeted only to fulfill the vested interest of the vice-chancellor? If it is not so then let Visva-Bharati go public with the ownership document of 0.13 acres (13 decimals) and let the matter be disposed of in a court of law,” read one of Somnath’s Facebook posts on January 28 which came under the university scanner.

In a statement issued by Visva Bharati on Friday, the university claimed it had actually toned down the disciplinary committee’s recommendation for a stricter punishment. “The recommendations of the committee are even harsher than just suspension of one semester. The competent authority reduced the quantum of punishment just to remind that Chatranam Adhyanam Topo (for the students, engagement in pursuing knowledge is the only duty) and not to damage his academic career. This does not, of course mean, that students shall remain mute observers at the sight of dehumanizing humanity; but in so doing, if they trespass the Laxman Rekha, the university is morally committed to carve out a course of correction for the deviant students and learners,” the statement, signed by public relations officer Mahua Banerjee, read.

At the receiving end of the institution’s ire, Sow, however, says that the university’s claims of “natural justice” and him getting a shot at self defense are twice removed from truth. “I was issued two show cause notices in February this year. I appeared before their disciplinary committee once in March. I had given the authorities a letter asking them to provide me with the complaint letter and the charges against me based on which the authorities issued the show cause letters so that I could offer my defense accordingly. The university provided me with none. I don’t even know what the charges against me actually are and how I have crossed that imperceptible Laxman Rekha. I never had any chance to defend myself. It was all a sham,” Sow alleges.

Somnath confirmed The Telegraph Online that he plans to move court against his suspension order.

As late as February this year, the Calcutta High Court had revoked a suspension order of Visva Bharati against another student on grounds that the university statute has no provisions for suo motu suspension of a student without initiating a disciplinary proceeding for misconduct by means of issuance of charge sheet.

“I think this suspension notice is a violation of that court order and I will knock on the doors of the high judiciary. I am waiting for my exams to get over first,” he said.

Alleging a “vindictive attitude” of the university authorities, the student said: “The university went into a silence zone after my appearance in March. Four months later and barely days before my exams they handed me a suspension notice. The move, clearly, is to keep me disturbed during my exams. By stating that the committee had recommended a stricter punishment, the authorities are trying to make it look like they did me a favour which I don’t agree with.”

Interestingly enough, Visva-Bharati’s statement on Friday seemed more keen on targeting the media for its reportage of Sow’s suspension. “The conundrum over whether Prof Amartya Sen possesses Visva Bharati’s leased land more than what was legally given to the lease (sic) is now being adjudicated by the court of law. At this point of time, the media reports highlighting that a regular student was suspended as he circulated a post on this issue in the public domain are prejudicial to the due processes of law,” the statement’s opening lines read.

Dedicating about half of its focus on the media and Visva-Bharati’s legal spar with the Nobel laureate, the statement also went on to state that projecting the suspended student as a “victim” for exercising his democratic rights was a “simplistic understanding of the constitutionally guaranteed Right to Freedom of Speech” and as such the media were “spreading stories which are totally unfounded”.

“… we have no desire to humiliate anyone; but it is also emphasized that by being famous, no one will be spared if Visva-Bharati’s interests are harmed. We will submit all relevant papers to the court as and when they are needed; we will supply no documents if any Ram, Shyam or Jadu ask for them,” the statement, perceptively referring to the student’s call to make the land documents public, added.

Rubbishing the university’s claim that media reports are “prejudicial to law”, Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, senior advocate at the Calcutta High Court said, “The two issues are clearly disconnected. It is the job of the media to report matters which involve public interest. Those who think otherwise have very limited knowledge of law.”