Read Time: 04 minutes
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 Wednesday, remarked that authorities along with students should collaborate to clean up the defacement caused by candidates during canvassing for the elections. The bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that once the area was cleaned and repainted, the vote counting could be initiated the following day.
The court further expressed frustration over the way the elections were conducted. The court opined that “It is a festival of democracy and not a festival of money laundering”.
The court observed that many candidates campaigned in luxury cars including Bentleys. The court urged the University to approach these wealthy candidates to contribute to the restoration efforts.
The court made such observations in a petition filed by one Prashant Manchanda, who sought directions against the government to take action against the candidates defacing public property during the Students’ Union elections.
The court, therefore, listed the matter for October 21.
During the previous court hearing, the bench had suspended the vote-counting process due to the deteriorated condition of the University and surrounding areas. The court observed that the candidates’ campaign activities had caused significant damage to public property.
The court also 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, permitted two students to participate in the DUSU elections, despite being denied the opportunity by their respective colleges.
The students, represented by Advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha, had filed a writ petition contesting the decision of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Khalsa College, Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College, and Sri Guru Govind Singh College of Commerce to abstain from the elections, citing their minority institution status under the protection of Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution.
Case Title: Prashant Manchanda v Union (WP(c) 7824/2017)
Please Login or Register
