Delhi High Court Orders Review of JNU SU Election Body, Appoints Observer Amidst Procedural Challenge

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the Grievance Redressal Cell constituted by Jawaharlal Nehru University ( JNU ) to examine grievances concerning the formation of the Election Committee (EC) for the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union ( JNU SU) elections. The court, while noting prima facie concerns regarding the procedure adopted, also appointed a former Supreme Court judge, Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian , as an Observer to oversee the ongoing election process.

The ruling came from the bench of Justice SachinDatta in a petition filed by Sakshi , a student, challenging the procedure used to constitute the Election Committee for the 2023-24 JNU SU elections.

Background of the Challenge

The petitioner challenged the notification dated February 16, 2024, which authorized two students, Aishe Ghosh and Md. Danish (impleaded as respondent nos. 3 and 4), to conduct General Body Meetings (GBMs) in various schools to elect members of the Election Committee. Subsequently, a notification on March 6, 2024, notified the names of the EC members.

The core of the petitioner's grievance was that the procedure adopted bypassed the JNU SU Students Council, which is mandated under Article 18 of the JNU SU Constitution to approve potential EC members. It was also contended that the elections were being held much later than the timeline stipulated in Article 13 of the Constitution (not later than three months from the date of opening after summer vacation), making it difficult for students occupied with academics. Further allegations included the arbitrary nature of the GBMs, specifically mentioning a "chit system" used for selecting EC members, and the alleged political bias of the authorized students (respondent nos. 3 and 4).

Arguments Presented

Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, argued that the procedure violated Article 18(iii) of the JNU SU Constitution, which requires 2/3rd approval from the Students Council before presenting the panel to school general bodies. He contended that excluding the Students Council vitiated the entire process, especially since the EC holds "total powers" regarding elections, including disqualifications, as per Appendix 1. He also highlighted the delay in elections against Article 13 timelines and questioned the method (alleged 'chit system') and political affiliation of the authorized individuals.

Counsel for JNU (Respondent No. 1) and the Dean of Students (Respondent No. 2), Ms. Monika Arora, countered that the petitioner lacked locus standi as she was not a candidate. They emphasized the availability of a Grievance Redressal Cell (GRC), constituted on March 6, 2024, to address election-related complaints. Regarding the timing, it was submitted that the delay was due to PhD admissions results being published late, and the decision to hold elections post-February ensured maximum participation, aligning with Lyngdoh Committee recommendations (6-8 weeks from session start). They justified bypassing the Students Council by citing the "absence of an outgoing student union" from previous years, stating that the decision to authorize respondent nos. 3 and 4 was taken after consulting student organizations and was sanctioned by a University General Body Meeting (UGBM).

Counsel for Respondent nos. 3 and 4, Aishe Ghosh and Md. Danish , disputed the claim of "absence of an outgoing student union," stating they were elected in the 2019 elections (as President and Joint Secretary, respectively). Intervenors also presented arguments.

Court's Analysis and Decision

Justice Datta , in his analysis, noted that some contentions raised by the petitioner, particularly regarding the method of constituting the EC, "merit deeper consideration." The court found the justification for bypassing the Students Council (absence of outgoing union) to be prima facie contradicted by the stand taken by respondent nos. 3 and 4 themselves, who were elected in 2019. The court also pointed out that even the UGBM resolution authorizing respondent nos. 3 and 4 mentioned coordination with 2019 councillors where available, with no record suggesting this was followed.

The court further highlighted the ambiguity surrounding the alleged "chit system" and the lack of records or minutes detailing the procedure used to elect EC members from various schools, finding this accentuated the ambiguity.

Instead of conducting an intricate factual inquiry itself, the court deemed it appropriate for the Grievance Redressal Cell to first examine the petitioner's complaints. The court referenced its own previous order in a 2019 JNU SU election challenge (W.P.(C) 9707/2019), where it had similarly directed the GRC to handle grievances and made the declaration of results subject to its orders.

Accordingly, the High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the GRC. The GRC has been directed to examine the grievances raised by the petitioner, in accordance with law and the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, and pass a reasoned order prior to the declaration of final results .

In a significant step to ensure fairness, the court, with the agreement of the parties, appointed Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian , Former Judge, Supreme Court of India , as an Observer to oversee the activities and functions of the Election Committee during the ongoing election process. JNU (Respondent No. 1) will be responsible for the Observer's remuneration.

The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of with these directions. The ruling ensures that while the election process may continue, the procedural validity of the Election Committee itself will be subject to scrutiny by the internal redressal mechanism under judicial oversight before the final results are declared.