Back
Allows Five DUSU Candidates to Contest, Says College Should Be
The on Tuesday granted urgent relief to five students whose nomination papers for the upcoming Students’ Union (DUSU) elections for the 2026–2027 academic year were rejected on technical grounds. Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the matter, allowed the candidates to contest after furnishing corrected documents, observing that colleges ought to adopt a “” approach in such administrative matters.
The petitions arose from two separate sets of candidates—two from and three from . In both cases, the candidates had been disqualified from the college-level elections due to what they argued were minor, inadvertent errors. The Court, after hearing submissions from both sides, set aside the rejections and directed the university authorities to include the candidates’ names in the final list and adjust the electronic voting machines (EVMs) accordingly.
The CLC Case: A Clerical Mix-Up in the
The first petition was filed by Kanhaiya Ranjan and Shashank Yadav, who had sought to contest for the post of Vice President of Campus Law Centre. Their nomination papers were initially accepted on , but later that same day, college authorities raised an objection: the candidates had mistakenly written their own names in the place of their fathers’ names in the prescribed .
Appearing for the petitioners, argued that the error was purely clerical and did not affect the identity or eligibility of the candidates. “Had it been pointed out to the petitioners on the same day, they would have rectified it immediately,” Gupta submitted, emphasising that the mistake was an honest oversight rather than any attempt at .
Opposing the plea, , representing , contended that the final list of candidates had already been published on , and that making last-minute changes would pose “,” particularly since the data had already been fed into the EVMs.
Justice Amit Bansal, however, noted that a of the same court had dealt with an identical issue in the previous year’s elections. In that case, the candidates had been permitted to file correct surety bonds and contest. “The case is squarely covered by that matter,” the Court observed, and directed the petitioners to furnish correct surety bonds by 3 PM on the day of the hearing. The Court further ordered the Campus Law Centre to issue a revised list of nominated candidates including the names of Kanhaiya Ranjan and Shashank Yadav, and directed the university to make appropriate arrangements for including their names in the EVMs.
The Sri Guru Gobind Singh College Case: Missing Aadhar and College ID Cards
The second set of petitions involved three candidates seeking to contest for the posts of President, Vice President, and General Secretary of . Their nominations were rejected on the ground that they had not submitted their Aadhar cards and college ID cards along with the nomination forms.
, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the requirement to produce these documents was not part of the prescribed list issued by the college. “The rejection was ,” Kalra submitted, pointing out that the college’s own notice dated , which listed the required documents, did not mention Aadhar card or college ID.
The counsel for the college countered that an advisory had been issued by mandating the submission of these two documents, and that the petitioners had bypassed the college’s by directly approaching the Court.
Justice Amit Bansal perused the college’s notice and found no mention of a requirement to furnish Aadhar card or college ID. “It is not the case of the college that the petitioners were not or did not have Aadhar card,” the Court remarked. “If there was any such requirement, during the , the same should have been informed to the petitioners. The candidature of the candidates cannot be rejected at the subsequent stage on account of absence of these documents.”
The Court allowed the plea and directed the three candidates to submit the required documents to the college authorities by 3 PM that day, after which they would be permitted to contest the elections scheduled for .
Key Observations: “College Should Be ”
Throughout the hearing, Justice Amit Bansal made a significant that has since resonated within the legal and academic community. In the context of the CLC case, the Judge remarked that “college should be in such matters,” signalling that educational institutions ought to exercise flexibility when candidates commit minor, non-fraudulent errors during the nomination process.
This observation underscores a broader judicial philosophy: that should not be allowed to defeat the of students to participate in democratic processes within their institutions. The Court’s approach aligns with the principle that election rules are meant to facilitate, not obstruct, the candidature of genuine students.
Legal Implications and Impact on University Elections
The ’s decision carries significant implications for the conduct of student body elections across Indian universities. By directing the university to accommodate the candidates even after the final list was published, the Court has set a precedent that administrative convenience cannot trump .
The judgment also clarifies the scope of scrutiny that returning officers must exercise. In the Sri Guru Gobind Singh College case, the Court emphasised that any additional document requirement not listed in the official notice must be communicated to candidates during scrutiny, not used as a basis for rejection at a later stage. This reinforces the need for in election procedures.
From a practical standpoint, the Court’s willingness to intervene on the eve of elections—despite the university’s plea of administrative difficulty in reprogramming EVMs—demonstrates that courts will prioritise the right of individuals to stand for election over logistical concerns. The direction to revise the candidate list and adjust EVM data sends a strong message to election authorities to remain flexible and responsive to judicial orders.
Conclusion
The ’s decision to allow five DUSU candidates to contest the college elections, despite the rejection of their nomination papers, reflects a student-friendly and pragmatic approach to election disputes. By urging colleges to be “” and by holding that minor clerical errors or missing documents should not disqualify genuine candidates, the Court has reinforced the democratic spirit that underpins student union elections.
The judgment also serves as a reminder to university authorities that election rules must be applied fairly and that any additional requirements must be clearly communicated in advance. As student elections continue to be a vibrant part of campus life, this ruling will likely be cited in future challenges to nomination rejections, ensuring that the doors of the judiciary remain open for students seeking justice in electoral matters.
