Delhi HC Cracks Down on DUSU Poll Violations, Demands Action on Defacement and Unruly Campaigning

New Delhi – In a significant judicial intervention aimed at upholding the sanctity of democratic processes within educational institutions, the Delhi High Court has taken a stern view of the widespread violations marring the campaign for the upcoming Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) elections. Observing a prima facie flouting of anti-defacement laws and the seminal Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, the Court has mandated immediate and effective action from both university authorities and the Delhi Police to ensure the polls are conducted in an "orderly manner."

A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) originally filed in 2017 by Advocate Prashant Manchanda. The plea sought to curb the perennial issue of defacement of public property during the high-stakes DUSU elections. A fresh application by Manchanda brought the Court's attention to the ongoing violations in the run-up to the September 18 polls, presenting evidence of rampant disregard for established norms.

The Court's observations underscore a foundational legal principle: the necessity for democratic processes, at any level, to operate strictly within the confines of the rule of law.

“Elections of any democratic institution is fundamental to democratic functioning of a society. Equally significant and important is that such democratic bodies or individuals aspiring when such bodies also function and conduct themselves within the rule of law,” the Bench emphatically stated.

This pronouncement frames the issue not merely as one of student indiscipline but as a matter of fundamental democratic integrity. The Court expressed its dismay at the conduct of the aspiring student leaders, suggesting their actions undermine the very institutions they seek to lead.

A "Telling Story" of Norm Violations

Upon reviewing the evidence submitted by the petitioner, which reportedly included photographs and other materials documenting the defacement and unruly campaigning, the High Court found the situation deeply troubling. The Bench described the evidence as a "telling story as to how these contestants in the election of the Delhi University Student Union, are violating all settled norms of conduct."

The Court noted the irony of candidates flouting regulations in their quest to win elections, highlighting a disconnect between their actions and the responsibilities of leadership.

“The candidates aspiring for contesting the polls need to understand that unless they conduct themselves in a manner which is appropriate to democratic setup of the society, the institutions which they intend to man once they get elected, are not likely to perform their functions which are expected of them,” the order observed.

The violations cited extend beyond the visual blight of defaced walls and include the "excessive use of motorized vehicles," which the Court condemned for causing traffic congestion and public nuisance. The judgment pointed out that such campaign tactics make "the life of an ordinary man miserable," thereby linking the candidates' actions directly to a broader societal impact beyond the university campus.

Judicial Mandate for Coordinated Action

Dissatisfied with the submissions from Delhi University's counsel, who claimed that necessary precautions and show-cause notices were being issued, the Court deemed these measures insufficient. The Bench remarked that the petitioner's application "tell[s] another story," indicating that the university's administrative actions were failing to effectively curb the violations on the ground.

“It may be that certain showcause notices might have been issued by DU. However, in our opinion, something more needs to be done to ensure that elections take place in an orderly manner without indulging into any kind of untoward incident, defacement of the properties or illegal plying of vehicles,” the Court directed.

To this end, the High Court issued a series of specific, actionable directives:

• Affidavit from University Authorities: The Court has called upon the highest authorities of the university, namely the Vice Chancellor or the Chief Election Commissioner for the DUSU polls, to file a detailed affidavit. This affidavit must outline the concrete and "effective" measures being implemented to ensure a peaceful and orderly election, with a specific focus on preventing property defacement and ensuring compliance with traffic laws.

• High-Level Coordination with Delhi Police: Recognizing the logistical and enforcement challenges, the Court has mandated a coordinated effort between the university and law enforcement. It directed the highest university officials to conduct a meeting with the Commissioner of Delhi Police to "jointly take stock of the situation" and devise joint strategies for enforcement.

• Active Role for Delhi Police: The Delhi Police has been explicitly directed to provide "all possible help and cooperation" to the university. Further, a competent officer from the Delhi Police is required to file a separate affidavit detailing the steps being taken to support the university in ensuring a smooth and lawful election process.

The Court has scheduled the next hearing for September 15, just days before the election, to review the compliance affidavits and ensure its directives are being implemented in earnest.

Legal and Institutional Implications

This judicial intervention is a powerful reminder of the judiciary's role as a guardian of the rule of law, extending its oversight to electoral conduct within university spaces. The case, Prashant Manchanda v. Union of India & Ors , re-energizes the discourse around the implementation of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, which were formulated by the Supreme Court to clean up student politics by capping election expenditure, prescribing age limits, and ensuring academic eligibility.

For legal practitioners, this case serves as a notable example of: * The Enduring Power of PIL: It demonstrates how a persistent PIL can serve as an effective mechanism for holding public institutions accountable for recurring systemic failures. * Enforcement of Administrative Law: The Court's directives are a classic exercise of its writ jurisdiction, compelling public bodies (the university and the police) to perform their statutory and public duties. * The Scope of Election Jurisprudence: The ruling expands the application of electoral integrity principles to non-governmental, yet quasi-public, democratic forums like student unions.

As the university administration and Delhi Police prepare their compliance reports, the legal and student community will be watching closely. The High Court's stringent stance has raised the stakes, transforming the DUSU elections from a campus affair into a litmus test for the enforcement of the rule of law and the cultivation of a responsible democratic culture among the nation's youth.