Disputed Attendance Record for Student Election Warrants Fair Hearing and Re-evaluation: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court Orders College to Re-evaluate Student's Disputed Attendance for Union Election

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, in a significant order championing procedural fairness, has directed Satyawati College to grant a personal hearing to a student whose nomination for the Students’ Union elections was rejected over an alleged attendance shortage. Justice Mini Pushkarna ordered the college's Grievance Committee to promptly re-calculate the student's attendance after considering her evidence, tying her eligibility to contest directly to the outcome of this review.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Muskan, a third-year B.A. (Programme) student at Satyawati College, approached the High Court after her nomination for the posts of President and Secretary was excluded from the final list of candidates for the Students’ Union Elections. The college administration cited her failure to meet the mandatory 75% attendance criterion, a rule stipulated by the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, as the reason for the rejection.

Petitioner's Arguments: A Case of Administrative Lapses

Counsel for Muskan argued that the apparent attendance shortage was not due to her absence but a result of "repeated administrative lapses" by the college. The petitioner contended that she was assigned multiple roll numbers after migrating to the college, leading to her attendance being incorrectly recorded under different identities.

It was submitted that Muskan was initially allotted Roll No. 683, which was already assigned to another student. Her attendance was then mistakenly recorded under Roll No. 688, also belonging to someone else. It was only in December 2024, after several complaints, that she was correctly assigned Roll No. 689. This confusion, she argued, created an artificially low attendance record despite her regular presence in classes.

Respondent's Stance and Court's Intervention

The college, represented by its counsel, maintained that the petitioner had only around 45% attendance, falling well short of the 75% threshold mandated by the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations for contesting elections.

During the hearing, the petitioner, upon instructions from her counsel, agreed to withdraw her nomination for the post of Secretary, choosing to contest only for the post of President.

The Court's Directive: A Path to Fairness

After considering the submissions, Justice Mini Pushkarna emphasized the importance of a fair process, especially given the petitioner's claims of administrative error. While affirming the college's authority to enforce the 75% attendance rule, the court carved out a path for the petitioner to prove her case.

"Considering the submissions made before this Court and the documents placed on record, this Court is of the view that a personal hearing be granted to the petitioner by the Grievance Committee..." the judgment stated.

The court issued the following key directions: 1. Immediate Hearing: The petitioner was to be given a personal hearing by the five-member Grievance Committee on the same day. 2. Evidence Presentation: Muskan was permitted to present her proof of attendance to the committee. 3. Transparent Recalculation: The committee was ordered to reconsider all records and recalculate her attendance in her presence. 4. Contingent Outcome: The final decision on her nomination was made contingent on the re-calculated attendance. If she meets the 75% mark, her nomination must be accepted. If not, the rejection would stand.

Final Decision and Implications

The court disposed of the writ petition with these clear directives. In an extraordinary measure acknowledging the time-sensitive nature of elections, the court also ordered that if her nomination is accepted, the petitioner shall be allowed to campaign until 9:00 PM that day.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that administrative rules, while important, do not unjustly penalize students due to clerical or systemic errors. It reaffirms the principle of natural justice, granting an individual the right to be heard before an adverse decision is finalized.