'Candidates' Expenditure Can Go Down The Drain': Delhi HC In Plea regarding Defacement Amidst DUSU Elections

Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

Prashant Manchanda sought directions 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. 

The Delhi High Court, on October 21, issued notice to major candidates of the Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) Elections in a plea filed concerning the defacement of public property during the election campaigning. The bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in the previous order, had halted the counting and release of election results until the defacement was cleaned and repainted. 

Advocate representing certain candidates appeared, seeking counting of votes, arguing that four month has already elapsed and duration of election term was significantly shortened causing injustice to the other students. However, the court held "Unless and until the whole place is cleaned up, we will not order for counting of votes. Expenditure can go down the drain". 

Advocate for Petitioner argued that although the colleges claimed to have cleaned the public property, the attached photographs depicted the current condition. The petitioner also stated that the report from Delhi University (DU) colleges was received the previous day, prompting an inspection conducted late at night. According to DU’s status report, 90% of the area had been cleaned, but the petitioner presented photographs to show the existing state.

The advocate representing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) asserted that the cleanup had been undertaken using the MCD's own machinery, incurring substantial expenses, and requested that costs be imposed on the students.

Meanwhile, Advocate for the Delhi Police indicated that an affidavit had been submitted, with approximately 69 cases registered against the violators. The petitioner's advocate emphasized that individuals who breached the Delhi Metro Rail Act should face stringent penalties due to the significant costs incurred for the removal of defacement, despite a lack of awareness-raising measures.

In court, a video was presented by the petitioner’s advocate, illustrating the extent of defacement during the election period. The court observed that expensive luxury vehicles had been used and questioned the Delhi Police regarding the unregistered cars involved, instructing them to take appropriate action. "Where is Delhi Police in all this? Why is your status report saying pending, what is to investigate? Every detail is already there, including name of candidate and of printers", the court remarked. 

The petitioner highlighted the flagrant disregard for the law, citing an incident where students forced their way into Miranda House College’s girls' hostel.

The court expressed dismay, noting that such conduct did not occur even during municipal elections and questioned how it could happen during college elections. It blamed Delhi University for failing to establish a monitoring system and instructed that the matter be brought to the attention of the Vice-Chancellor.

"Even in municipal elections, this does not happen. How can this happen in college elections?", the court remarked.

The court observed a lack of remorse among the candidates, as there was no indication of their actions in the status report. It declared that unless the entire area was thoroughly cleaned, the vote counting would not be ordered, as the expenses could be wasted. Furthermore, the court stated that if the candidates could arrange convoys of 20 luxury cars, they should also be able to provide funds for the cleanup.

Consequently, the court added the candidates as respondents and directed their appearance, scheduling the next hearing for October 28, 2024.

Background

The court had previously criticized the University for its failure to enforce strict measures against candidates responsible for defacing public property. It expressed the view that the University “lacked moral authority and courage” to implement effective actions against such misconduct.

The court, in a connected matter, had also permitted two students to participate in the DUSU elections, despite being denied the opportunity by their respective colleges. 

Case Title: Prashant Manchanda v Union (WP(c) 7824/2017)