Delhi High Court: The present petition was filed by petitioner being aggrieved with the procedure adopted by respondents for constituting the Election Committee (‘EC’) for elections of the students council and office bearers of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (‘JNUSU’) for the academic year 2023-2024 (‘the impugned elections’). Sachin Datta, J.*, granted liberty to petitioner to approach the Grievance Redressal Cell set up vide the notification dated 06-03-2024, and directed the Grievance Redressal Cell to examine the grievances raised by petitioner and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The Court opined that in view of election that was stated to be notified on 10-03-2024, the Grievance Redressal Cell was directed to complete the aforesaid exercise and pass a reasoned order prior to declaration of the results. Accordingly, the Court appointed Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Former Judge, Supreme Court, as the observer to exercise oversight over the activities/functions to be discharged by the Election Committee.
Background
Petitioner had impugned the notification dated 16-02-2024, whereby it was recorded that Respondents 3 and 4 had been authorised by the University General Body Meeting (‘UGBM’) to conduct the General Body Meeting (‘GBM’) in the various constituent schools of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (‘JNU’) for electing the members of the election committee for the impugned elections.
Thus, pursuant to the authorisation, Respondents 3 and 4 organized/presided over General Body Meetings in the various constituent schools of JNU. Consequentially, a further notification dated 06-03-2024 was issued by Respondent 3 and 4, whereby names of the members of the EC along with chairperson was notified.
Thus, aggrieved with the procedure adopted by the election committee, petitioner filed the present petition.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that petitioner relied upon Article 18.3 of the JNUSU Constitution to contend that it was impermissible to by-pass the students council from the process of the constituting the EC, to which Respondent 2 justified that by-passing was on the ground that there was absence of an outgoing Students Union. However, Respondents 3 and 4 refuted the plea regarding absence of an outgoing Students Union. Thus, the Court opined that the rationale/justification for the procedure adopted for the purpose of authorising Respondents 3 and 4 to preside over the school level GBMs, was negated to some extent by Respondents 3 and 4 themselves.
Further, the Court opined that as per the resolution of UGBM, it was clearly mentioned that in the schools where the councillors elected in 2019-20 were available, the GBMs could be presided over by the councillors in coordination with the office bearers, and there was nothing on record to suggest that this procedure was followed. The Court further opined that there was ambiguity about the ‘chit system’ followed by Respondents 3 and 4 for conducting school level GBMs, and the ambiguity was further highlighted by the explanation given by Respondents 3 and 4 during the course of hearing regarding the procedure adopted, coupled with the absence of any records or minutes reflecting the procedure devised to elect members of the EC.
The Court opined that it would be appropriate if in the first instance, the petitioner’s complaints/ grievances were examined by the Grievance Redressal Cell which had been specifically constituted for the purpose of the impugned elections. Accordingly, the Court granted liberty to petitioner to approach the Grievance Redressal Cell set up vide the notification dated 06-03-2024 and directed the Grievance Redressal Cell to examine the grievances raised by petitioner and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The Court opined that in case it was found that the constitution of the EC was not in consonance with law or with Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, appropriate consequential orders regarding the impugned elections, would also be passed by the Grievance Redressal Cell.
The Court opined that in view of election that was stated to be notified on 10-03-2024, the Grievance Redressal Cell was directed to complete the aforesaid exercise and pass a reasoned order prior to declaration of the results. Accordingly, the Court appointed Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Former Judge, Supreme Court, as the observer to exercise oversight over the activities/functions to be discharged by the EC.
[Sakshi v. Jawaharlal Nehru University, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1858, decided on 15-03-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Sachin Datta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate along with Jivesh Tiwari, Aditya Kashyap, Govind Kumar and Siddhant Poddar, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Monika Arora along with Subhrodeep Saha, Advocates; Vasanth Rajasekaran, Saurabh Babulkar and Harshvardhan Korada, Advocates; Abhik Chimin, Anant Khajuria, Maroof, Advocates
