SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 1390

ARJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
University of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Council, Principals' Colleges, Kerala – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

  • The Supreme Court accepted the recommendations of the Committee constituted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development regarding Students' Union Elections as an interim measure for all college/university elections until further orders. [1000692080001][1000692080006]
  • The Court directed the provision of security to the academic community involved in the election process, ensuring police protection to prevent untoward incidents. [1000692080006]
  • Universities and colleges must conduct elections for student representative bodies, preferably using a structured election model (direct, indirect, or hybrid) rather than a nomination system, with a transition period of 5 years from the nomination model. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • If elections cannot be held or if the nomination model is in place, it should only be used as an interim measure, with institutions reviewing the mechanism after 2 years and again after the 3rd or 4th year. (!) (!) (!)
  • All institutions must institute an apex student representative body comprising only regular students, excluding faculty and administration members. (!) (!)
  • Various modes of elections were recommended, including direct elections for smaller campuses and indirect electoral college systems for larger, widespread universities. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Student elections must be disassociated from political parties; no non-students are permitted to participate in the election process. (!) (!)
  • The entire election process, including campaigning, should not exceed 10 days, and elections should be held yearly between 6 to 8 weeks from the start of the academic session. (!) (!) (!)
  • Eligibility criteria include age limits (17-22 for undergraduates, up to 24-25 for postgraduates, up to 28 for research students), no academic arrears, minimum attendance (75% or as prescribed), and no criminal record or prior disciplinary action. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Candidates must be full-time students and are subject to expenditure limits (Rs. 5000 per candidate) with mandatory submission of audited/certified accounts. (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • A strict code of conduct prohibits caste/communal appeals, use of loudspeakers/vehicles, defacement of property, and campaigning outside the campus; violations can lead to disqualification. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Provisions of the Indian Penal Code, specifically Section 153-A and Chapter IX-A (Offences relating to elections), are made applicable to student elections. (!)
  • A Grievances Redressal Cell must be established, chaired by the Dean (Student Welfare) or a teacher in charge, with powers to investigate complaints, summon witnesses, inspect financial reports, and impose sanctions like fines or disqualification. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • The Grievance Cell acts as the court of original jurisdiction, with the institutional head having appellate jurisdiction over its decisions. (!) (!) (!)
  • Law and order must be maintained, with any criminal offences reported to the police within 12 hours. (!) (!)
  • The Court directed modifications to the Committee's recommendations: "audited accounts" shall be substituted with "certified accounts," and the reporting period for law and order incidents shall be reduced from 12 hours to 6 hours. [1000692080003]

ORDER :

Arjit Pasayat, J.

Heard.

2. We have perused the report of the Committee constituted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India in terms of the order of this Court dated 12-12-2005. The Committee headed by Mr. J.M. Lyngdoh has submitted the report making recommendations and suggestions relating to Students' Union Elections. We are, prima facie, of the view that the recommendations need acceptance and as an interim measure, we direct the following recommendations to be implemented, subject to such modifications indicated hereinafter.

3. The recommendations are:

    "6.1.1. Universities and colleges across the country must ordinarily conduct elections for the appointment of students to student representative bodies. These elections may be conducted in the manner prescribed herein, or in a manner that conforms to the standards prescribed herein.

    6.1.2. Where the atmosphere of the university campus is adverse to the conduct of peaceful, free and fair elections, the university, its constituent colleges and departments must initiate a system of student representation based on nominations, especially where elections are being held at present. It would be advisable, ho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None identified. The provided case law entry does not indicate any treatment such as overruled, reversed, or criticized. It appears to be a precedent accepted in relation to committee recommendations affecting student participation in elections within the University of Kerala. Without explicit language indicating negative treatment or overruling, this case cannot be classified as bad law.

Followed / Accepted:

Vice Chancellor, Kerala University of Fisheries & Ocean Studies vs Mohammad Rameesh K.P. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44382: The case is described as "precedent - Accepted committee recommendations," indicating it has been followed or accepted as good law in subsequent references. This suggests judicial approval or adherence to the ruling, reinforcing its status as a valid precedent.

Distinguished / Cited:

No cases explicitly identified as distinguished or cited as authoritative in a manner that alters their legal standing.

Criticized / Questioned:

No language or indication suggesting that the case has been criticized or questioned in subsequent rulings.

Reversed / Overruled:

No evidence from the provided list that this case has been overruled or reversed. The description does not mention any such treatment.

Abrogated:

No indication that the case has been abrogated or considered no longer valid.

The list contains only one case law entry with limited context. Due to the absence of explicit treatment indicators, the treatment status of this case remains clear as accepted, and there is no ambiguity to note here.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top