Read Time: 08 minutes
Manchanda sought directions for authorities to take action against DUSU election candidates and student political groups involved in defacing public property and disrupting classrooms. It was alleged that student leaders were damaging public and private property by spray-painting and pasting posters across Delhi in preparation for the elections, including defacing classrooms.
On Thursday, the Delhi High Court criticized the University for its failure to take disciplinary action against students campaigning for the Students' Union Elections, stating that the institution “lacked moral authority and courage”. The court made this observation in response to a petition filed by Prashant Manchanda, who sought directions for the Government to act against students defacing public property during the DUSU (Delhi University Students' Union) Elections.
A bench led by ACJ Manmohan, along with Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, strongly rebuked the Delhi University officials, asserting that students involved in such defacement should be expelled, as they “bring a bad name to the entire university”.
While presenting arguments regarding the defacement, Prashant Manchanda claimed that candidates were spending excessively during their campaigns, implying that political parties were funding them. He also stated that posters were being used to deface public property, in violation of the DUSU Constitution.
Advocates Mohinder JS Rupal and Hardik Rupal, for Delhi University, admitted that the Lyngdoh Committee Report was being violated, despite its endorsement by the Supreme Court. The Lyngdoh Committee, formed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) in 2006 following a Supreme Court directive, was tasked with reforming student elections to eliminate the influence of money and muscle power. The Committee's guidelines prohibit students with criminal records or misconduct from contesting elections.
Manchanda criticized the students' actions, arguing that they should be held both jointly and individually liable for the damage caused to public property. He expressed concern that such incidents recurred with each election cycle and highlighted the alleged use of money power, citing the presence of luxury car convoys during campaigns.
He further urged the court to instruct the University to establish clear guidelines for elections and create a permanent committee to oversee such matters. Expressing his dissatisfaction with the existing grievance system, Manchanda argued that students would be reluctant to file complaints, as they would not want to confront “such heavy people”.
Describing the spray-painted defacement as “horrendous”, Manchanda pointed out the excessive time and money spent restoring the university's premises after the elections. He also claimed that the convoys of cars disrupted traffic and inconvenienced schoolchildren.
Manchanda noted that despite previous candidates who had defaced property issuing unconditional apologies, they continued to repeat their actions. He accused University officials of inaction and called on the court to intervene, suggesting that the elections be postponed. He stated, “Such people, who create ruckus in society, cause problems to school children... they need to know the consequences”.
During the hearing, while Advocates Mohinder JS Rupal and Hardik Rupal proposed the formation of a committee to address such issues, a heated debate arose over whether the elections should be canceled. Manchanda argued that “entire Delhi is defaced” and that such students should not receive votes, further asserting that the elections, ironically, were not truly democratic, resulting in hardships for many students.
The court harshly reprimanded the University officials, questioning their inability to manage the situation and discipline the students. He remarked, “These are people pursuing higher academics behaving like this. You can’t deal with 21 people; how will you send a message?”
The court accused the University's officials of lacking courage, will, and moral authority to initiate action. The court remarked, “You lack courage and moral authority. You have more power than us. You can discipline a student. But you can’t deal with 21 students?”.
In the last court hearing, the court had directed the Police along with MCD and DMRC to ensure no further defacement of public property is committed during the Delhi University Student Union Elections (DUSU Elections).
Accordingly, the court adjourned the case to October 21, 2024. For Union: Special Public Counsel Bharathi RajuFor University: Advocates Mohinder JS Rupal and Hardik RupalFor MCD: Standing Counsel Sanjeev Sabharwal with Advocate Shweta Singh For DMRC: Advocates Pushkar Sood, Shikha Sood, Monika Saini, and Satya Prakash Singh
Case Title: Prashant Manchanda v Union (W.P.(C) 7824/2017)
Please Login or Register
