The Supreme Court will hear an application to disqualify candidates who violated the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Commission

Today (November 25), the Supreme Court issued notice in the Special Leave Petition (C) against the Delhi High Court’s November 11 order in which it refused to disqualify candidates who allegedly violated the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee during the Delhi University Students’ Union elections.

On November 11 orderThe High Court in a Public Interest Litigation has issued a direction to the University of Delhi (the respondent) to undertake counting of votes in the Delhi University Students’ Union elections for 2024-2025 on or before November 26. It should be to the satisfaction of Delhi University in terms of cleanliness and repair of the damaged property of the University.

The High Court’s order said it took no action against the erring students because of their young age and also because the proceedings were informative and not punitive.

In front of J’s benchustice Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, the petitioner stated in the SLP that the High Court had disregarded the binding recommendations of the Lyngdoh Commission and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case University of Kerala v. Board of Directors of Universities, Kerala (2011).

The petitioner stated that according to this decision, erring students should be excluded from participating in the elections.

The petitioner further argued that in the above-mentioned University of Kerala decision, the Court adopted the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations, which aim to limit the influence of money, muscle power and other illicit means on university elections.

It is the case of the petitioner that the University of Delhi has failed to ensure compliance with the recommendations of the committee. In fact, it allowed candidates to blatantly violate them, polluting the entire electoral process and causing public disorder and harassment of students and the general public.

The petitioners are academicians of the University of Delhi and law graduates who have stated: “If these actions are allowed to continue in a brazen and unrelenting manner, they only encourage such student political leaders not to fear law and order or assume that their evil deeds can always be tolerated given their young age.” .

“…The honorable Supreme Court has deliberately overlooked the fact that destruction of public property, university premises, unauthorized use of luxury vehicles for campaign purposes, use of muscle power, printed pamphlets were used on a large scale in campaigns and this fact is as evident from the case files , as well as video footage of DUSU election campaigns, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation in the list of documents filed before the High Court categorically mentions the names of candidates who were involved in defamation and various other violations.” objection raised.

The main recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee referred to by the petitioner are as follows:

1. The maximum allowable expenditure per candidate is Rs. 5000/.

2. Each candidate is obliged to submit a complete and verified report to the university/university authorities within two weeks of the announcement of the result. The college/university shall publish the verified reports within 2 days of submission, through the appropriate media, so that any member of the student body can freely check them.

3. A candidate’s selection will be invalidated in case of non-compliance or excessive expenditure.

4. No candidate shall be permitted to use printed posters, printed brochures or any other printed material for canvassing purposes. Candidates may use only handmade posters for canvassing purposes, provided that such handmade posters are purchased within the spending limit specified above.

5. Candidates may use their own posters in specific places on the campus, about which they will be notified in advance by the electoral commission/university authorities.

6. No candidate or his supporters may destroy or cause destruction of any university/college campus property for any purpose without the prior written consent of the university/college authorities. All candidates are jointly and severally liable for the destruction/destruction of university/college property.

7. It is prohibited to use loudspeakers, vehicles and animals for agitation purposes.

8. Violation of any of the above recommendations may result in the candidate being deprived of his candidacy or, as the case may be, of his elected position. The authorities of the election commission/college/university may also take appropriate disciplinary action against such violation.

Background

On November 11, the Delhi High Court directed the Delhi University to undertake the process of counting votes for the DUSU elections on or before November 26, provided that all places damaged by the contesting candidates are cleaned and repainted within a week.

Division bench consisting of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela he said it is the responsibility of the candidates and current students of DU to ensure that the next batch can use the university’s infrastructure in good and clean condition.

The court considered a complaint filed by, among others, Advocate Prashant Manchanda in 2017, demanding action against candidates damaging public property. The complaint also requested the removal of the damage and renovation of the areas. Manchanda sent the request in the wake of the recent vandalism and destruction at the DUSU polls.

Court in September arrested the process of counting votes in elections to the University of Delhi and other universities following acts of vandalism and destruction of public and private property by the candidates. The Court later said it would allow it counting votes will take place the next day if all the damage has been cleaned up.

SLP was developed by AOR Govind Jee.

Case Details: AKHILESH KUMAR MISHRA & ORS v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 27994/2024

Appearances: Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher

Click here to read the order