‘Publicity PIL’: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Enforcement of Lyngdoh Committee Norms on Student Elections

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to entertain the petition filed by Shiv Kumar Tripathi, observing that it lacked merit and did not warrant the Court’s interference.

During the brief hearing, counsel appearing for Tripathi submitted that the petition sought enforcement of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations to ensure fair, transparent, and regulated student body elections in educational institutions. The plea argued that the norms were intended to curb the use of money and muscle power in campus politics while safeguarding academic discipline.

However, the CJI was unimpressed and remarked sharply that the petition appeared to be motivated by publicity rather than genuine public interest. “You just want to go out and address others (media). Only for publicity,” the Chief Justice said, before dismissing the plea after hearing the counsel.

The Court also noted that the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations had already been accepted by the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings and were made mandatory for all universities and colleges across the country. As a result, the Bench saw no reason to revisit or reissue directions on their implementation through the present petition.

The Lyngdoh Committee was constituted by the central government pursuant to Supreme Court directions, with the objective of reforming student politics and insulating academic institutions from disruptive electoral practices. Its 2006 report prescribed a detailed regulatory framework for student elections, including age limits, expenditure caps, and restrictions on political party involvement.

Among its key recommendations, the committee fixed the age limit for undergraduate students contesting college elections between 17 and 22 years. For postgraduate students, the age limit was set between 24 and 25 years for contesting university-level polls. The report also suggested several other measures aimed at ensuring discipline, transparency, and fairness in campus elections.

The plea has been filed through AoR Jaydip Pati alleging contumacious conduct by university authorities and education officials for failing to implement the Supreme Court’s binding directions on student union elections, as laid down in the Lyngdoh Committee case.

The petition claims that despite being “academically and intellectually equipped,” official respondents entrusted with shaping the careers of students and scholars have adopted a hyper-technical approach that is adversely impacting the academic futures of students across the country. It alleges that the continued non-holding of student elections in colleges and universities has caused grave prejudice to students, research scholars, and the academic community at large.

Filed by a self-described public-spirited individual, the plea seeks enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, arguing that arbitrary inaction by authorities has resulted in denial of participatory rights, academic representation, and institutional accountability.

According to the petition, university authorities have undermined the apex court’s categorical findings with impunity, thereby exposing themselves to potential proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. The alleged failure to conduct student elections, despite clear judicial mandates, is described as an open infringement of judge-made law and a direct challenge to the supremacy of the Constitution.

The petition also refers to the Lyngdoh Committee report constituted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development pursuant to Supreme Court directions in 2005. Headed by former Chief Election Commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh, the committee had laid down a comprehensive framework to regulate student union elections, aimed at curbing money and muscle power while preserving academic discipline.

The plea highlights that the impact of such non-compliance is not confined to one region but affects students and academics across several states, including Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Kerala. It warns that continued inaction could result in “intellectual anarchy” and irreparable damage to higher education institutions.

The petitioner has also relied on a 2015 D.O. letter issued by the University Grants Commission, which allegedly reflects dissatisfaction within academic circles over the non-implementation of the Lyngdoh Committee norms.

Case Title: Shiv Kumar Tripathi & Ors. v. Union of India