After the eight students — debarred by the high-level inquiry committee formed to look into the February 9 incident in JNU — refused to depose, the course of the investigation has now changed to “document trail”, sources in the university said.
The committee, supposed to submit its report by February 25, has been given three extensions and now supposed to submit its report by March 11.
According to sources, the members of the inquiry committee are now trailing the documentary evidence including the letter of permission that students had obtained for the February 9 event and if there was a letter of cancellation issued thereafter.
“There is a letter that says permission was given to students by the administration but there is no letter that says that the permission was later withdrawn on February 9. As per the Delhi government SDM report, the administration had informed students about the cancellation of event around 4.45 p.m. but the Registrar has told the committee members that a security guard was sent to Umar Khalid around 3 p.m. to tell him that the permission has been cancelled,” a senior faculty member said. “The panel is now looking at these evidence since none of the eight students have deposed in front of the committee, refusing to accept its formation,” the faculty member added.
There are doubts about the authenticity of the video evidence on basis of which the students were debarred. Also, the SDM report had found three of the seven videos on the incident doctored.
Meanwhile, according to sources, the two new members who have been added to the committee have refused to sign on the initial findings of the report. “The two were of the view that the inquiry should be started afresh, which did not happen and that is the reason that they have refused to sign,” a faculty member who is also a part of the JNU Teachers’ Association said. JNUTA and students have also been demanding that the panel should start the inquiry afresh. The JNU Registrar Bhupinder Zutshi has recently deposed in front of the committee. In his deposition, he had said: “Kanhaiya Kumar had opposed to the administration’s decision of cancelling the permission”, a charge which was refuted by Mr. Kumar.
Two new members of the committee have refused to sign on the initial findings of report