Supreme Court refuses to hear plea seeking student union elections in universities across the country

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has refused to hear a plea seeking student union elections in universities across the country. The petition stated that in 2006, the Supreme Court had accepted the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee and ordered that student union elections be held based on those recommendations in the future, but elections are not being held in many universities.

The petition, filed by advocate Shiv Kumar Tripathi and two former student leaders, was heard by a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. At the beginning of the hearing, the judges questioned the purpose of the petition. They asked why the Supreme Court should intervene in whether or not elections are being held in universities.

The petitioner’s lawyer argued that they were only seeking compliance with the court’s order in the University of Kerala case. He stated that student unions work for the benefit of students and that their elections would help new leaders emerge in the country. He added that this is also essential for democracy.

The judges appeared unimpressed by the petitioner’s arguments. They termed the petition as a publicity stunt. The Chief Justice said that people should not burden the court with unnecessary petitions. The court remarked that the petitioner seemed interested in turning college campuses into political battlegrounds. With these observations, the court dismissed the petition.

It is worth noting that the Supreme Court had issued an order in 2006 to address irregularities in university and college student union elections. This order aimed to ensure that individuals who stayed in universities until middle age solely for political purposes were excluded. It mandated that only students serious about their studies and with at least 75 percent attendance should be allowed to contest elections.

The Supreme Court’s order, based on the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee, also stipulated that student union elections should be held regularly. The petitioner argued that state governments have either indefinitely postponed or completely cancelled student union elections. They claimed that the state governments and universities were in contempt of court by not complying with the court’s order.