Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on November 11, directed the commission to initiate counting of students’ Union elections from 26th November subject to clearance by the university regarding cleaning and repainting of defaced property. 

The bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held, “The intent of the present proceedings was to ensure the students recognize that university property belongs to the public at large, which students are entitled to use for a limited period. The proceedings intended to reform and not to punish”. 

Prashant Manchanda had filed a petition seeking 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 advocate for the students urged the court to set a date for the vote-counting process. In response, the university’s counsel stated that recommendations had been prepared and would be presented to the Vice-Chancellor for further consideration.

In its pronouncement, the court noted that visible defacement had been largely addressed, and the DUSU election reform committee’s report had been accepted in principle by the Vice-Chancellor. It was assured to the court that any future violations of guidelines would be treated with seriousness.

However, the petitioner pointed out that, despite cleanup efforts, signs of defacement persisted on both public and private properties near university campuses. 

The court recorded an assurance from the student representatives that they would clean and repaint the sites highlighted by the petitioner. The university was instructed to verify these claims and submit a report within 10 days. The court emphasized that the purpose of the proceedings was not punitive but reformative, aiming to instill in students the understanding that university property is public and should be respected. 

Additionally, it was declared that the vote-counting process could commence on November 26, contingent upon the university’s satisfaction with the students’ compliance in cleaning and repainting the affected sites.

Background: 

The court 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. 

In the order dated October 21st, the court halted the counting and release of election results until the defacement was cleaned and repainted. In the order dated October 28th, the court asked the Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) candidates to submit a short affidavit within two weeks concerning the clean-up drive carried out by the candidates.

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