1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. NOS. 22, 23 & 24 IN  CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 887 OF 2009

UNIVERSITY OF KERALA                        Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

COUNCIL,PRINCIPALS',COLLEGES,KERALA & ORS.  Respondent(s)

ORDER

Heard  Mr.  Gopal  Subramanium,  learned  amicus  

curiae, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel appearing  

for the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union,  

Mr. A.C. Dhanda, learned counsel for Jawaharlal Nehru  

University (JNU) authorities and also Mr. M.L. Lahoty,  

learned counsel appearing for the Youth for Equality  

Students.

The instant matter comes up before us by way of  

Interlocutory Applications No. 22-23 and 24 filed by  

the JNU Students' Union and the learned Amicus Curiae  

respectively.

It appears that by way of judicial intervention,  

this  Court  wanted  to  introduce  fairness  and  

transparency  in  the  holding  of  elections  to  the  

Students'  Unions  in  various  Universities  across  the

2

country. The main thrust behind such intervention is  

because of the  fact that the general election scenario  

in this country is murky and suffering from mob-muscle  

methods  which  have  deleterious  effects  on  various  

elections including conduct of free and fair elections  

to the students' unions. Elections to students' bodies  

has been badly affected throughout the country.  It  

goes without saying that the students are the future  

representatives in various democratic bodies like State  

Legislative  Assemblies  as  well  as  Parliament  in  our  

democratic set up. This Court, therefore, thought that  

a value based mechanism should be inculcated at a very  

early stage in the elections of students' bodies so  

that the same ultimately transforms and improves  the  

quality  of   general  elections  to  strengthen  the  

democratic  governance  of  the  country.  This  Court,  

therefore,  on  the  basis  of  important  public  law  

principles,  intervened  in  the  judgment  rendered  by  

Kerala  High  Court  where  the  main  controversy  in  a  

students'  body  election  was  whether  the  form  of  

elections should be Parliamentary or Presidential.

By an order dated 12th December, 2005, a Division  

Bench  of  this  Court  took  note  of  certain  valid  

suggestions given by Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the then  

Additional  Solicitor  General  (presently  appearing  as  

amicus curiae before us) in order to ensure free and

3

fair  elections  to  the  students'  bodies  across  the  

country. The learned amicus suggested that there are  

three  areas  of  serious  concern  which  need  immediate  

attention of this Court. They are:

(a) Criminalization in Students' Union elections.

(b) Financial transparency and limits of expenditure.

(c)  Criterion for being eligible to contest elections.

This Court, after hearing Mr. Gopal Subramanium,  

the then Additional Solicitor General and the counsel  

for  Principals  of  the  Colleges  and  the  students'  

bodies,  found  that  the  suggestions  given  by  learned  

amicus are prima facie worth considering and therefore,  

appointed  a  Committee  consisting  of  the  following  

persons:

1.  Mr. J.S. Lyngdoh, Retd. Chief Election Commissioner

2.  Dr. Zoya Hasan

3.  Professor Pratap Bhanu Mehta

4.  Dr. Dayanand Dongaonkar (Secretary General of the  Association of Indian Universities)

The  said  order  dated  12th December,  2005  also  

directs nomination of two other members by the Ministry  

of  Human  Resources  and  Development  and  one  of  the  

members should preferably be a Chartered Accountant to  

consider the financial angles of such elections.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, a  

Committee was constituted by the Central Government and  

the  said  Committee  ultimately  consisted  of  the  

following persons:

4

Shri J.M. Lyngdoh Chairman Former Chief Election Commissioner

Chairman

Prof. Zoya Hasan Member Professor Centre for Political Studies

Member

Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta Member President & Chief Executive Centre for Policy Research New Delhi

Member

Prof. Ved Prakash Member Director National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA) New Delhi

Member

Shri I.P. Singh Member Retired Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General

Member

Prof. Dayanand Dongaonkar Convener Secretary General Association of Indian Universities New Delhi

Convener

The  aforesaid  Committee  upon  a  very  seirous  

exercise gave detailed recommendations. This Court vide  

its order dated 22nd  September, 2006 accepted those  

recommendations and directed that those recommendations  

should thereafter be followed scrupulously in holding  

elections to the students' bodies in all Universities  

across the country.

We  are  happy  to  note  that  after  those  

recommendations are given, the standard of fairness in  

the  matter  of  holding  elections  to  students'  bodies  

across the country has substantially improved.

5

Afterwards,  notice  of  this  Court  was  drawn  to  

certain complaints to the effect that  elections were  

taking  place  not  in  accordance  with  those  

recommendations. This Court  vide an order dated 24th  

October, 2008, issued notice of contempt to the Vice  

Chancellor and the Registrar of the Jawaharlal Nehru  

University and also stayed the JNU elections which were  

scheduled to be held on 3rd November, 2008 as they are  

not being held in accordance with the Lyngdoh Committee  

recommendations which were accepted by this Court.

Pursuant  to  such  notice  of  contempt,  the  

University authorities appeared before this Court and  

made it clear that the elections in JNU are held under  

the  Jawaharlal  Nehru  University  Act  and  the  student  

bodies are holding such elections as autonomous bodies  

and the JNU authorities  do not have much control in  

those matters.

Since the elections to the student bodies of JNU  

were stayed pursuant to the aforesaid order of this  

Court  dated  24th October,  2008,  interlocutory  

applications were filed by the student bodies seeking  

leave of this Court for the holding of elections in  

accordance with the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations  

and  if  necessary  by  seeking  certain  suitable  

modifications to the existing norms so that elections  

are held in a manner which is substantially in tune

6

with the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee.

It may also be noticed that prayers were also made  

for vacation of the order of the stay issued by this  

Court on 24th October, 2008.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and  

the amicus in connection with the aforesaid prayers and  

after hearing parties, we pass the following order.

This Court is confronted with two competing claims  

of public interest: On the one hand, the Court has to  

ensure purity in the election process and on the other  

hand, is the right to exercise the vitally important  

liberty of the students to choose their representative  

through election. This Court has held that this right  

to choose one's representative through an election is  

virtually an extension of one's fundamental right to  

freedom  of  expression  (See  Union  of  India  Vs.  

Association of Democratic Reforms & Anr.  (2002) 5 SCC  

294).  Thus,  it  partakes  of  the  character  of  a  

fundamental right.

We thought that such a right cannot be possibly  

stifled by a Court order. Thus, we are trying to strike  

a balance and in doing so, we have followed the concept  

of  reasonable  restrictions,  which  is  a  part  of  our  

Constitutional doctrine.

We have been told by the learned counsel appearing  

for the University that JNU is primarily a research

7

oriented  University.  There  are  some  students  in  the  

language courses but JNU is basically a post-graduate  

University.  JNU  being  primarily  a  research  oriented  

university, it has certain unique and distinct features  

of its own.

We have heard learned Amicus Curiae on the areas  

of relaxation which have been sought by the students'  

union  and  also  considered  the  suggestions  given  by  

learned amicus.

One  of  the  issues  is  for  the  time  period  of  

holding of elections. After considering the suggestions  

given by the learned amicus and learned counsel for the  

parties, we do not think that any variation in Lyngdoh  

Committee recommendation in that aspect is called for.

The next suggestion is coming up on the question  

of age restriction of candidates. After considering the  

suggestions  given  by  learned  amicus  and  also  after  

hearing  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  students'  

bodies,  we  accept  the  suggestion  given  by  learned  

amicus  that for research students, the maximum age  

limit  which  can  be  fixed  for  them  to  legitimately  

contest the election could be enhanced to 30 years.

Insofar as attendance criteria is concerned, we  

have been told by the learned counsel appearing for the  

University  authorities  that  in  JNU,  for  research  

students  no  attendance  is  taken.  Therefore,  the

8

stipulation  given  in  the  Lyngdoh  Committee  

recommendation about 75% attendance is not applicable  

insofar as election by research students of JNU  is  

concerned.

So far as the repeat criteria is concerned, we do  

not think that any change is required. We reiterate  

that the elections should be held in accordance with  

the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations.

Similarly,  in  cases  of  criminal  record  of  

candidates,  the  recommendation  of  Lyngdoh  Committee  

should be followed.

Insofar  as  the  use  of  printed  material  and  

pamphlets is concerned, we accept the suggestions given  

by  the  learned  amicus  that  photostat  copies  of  

pamphlets and manifestos may be permitted within the  

limit  of  Rs.  5000/-  as  recommended  by  the  Lyngdoh  

Committee.

Insofar as grievance mechanism is concerned, we  

think no change is called for.

Since we are of the view that the recommendations  

of the Lyngdoh Committee are very salutary in nature,  

we  have  not  allowed  any  major  changes  except  those  

which are absolutely necessary.

We hope that elections may be satisfactorily held  

in view of the relaxations permitted by this order.

With  the  above  directions,  the  interlocutory

9

applications stand disposed of.

Before parting with the matter, this Court records  

its  profound  appreciation  for  the  very  competent  

assistance rendered by the learned amicus in resolving  

these issues, which are of vital importance.

............................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)  

............................J. (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)  

NEW DELHI, 8-12-2011