The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary action taken against a candidate by a College can render the candidate ineligible for standing in a University election, in conformity with the affidavit submitted by the candidate and the relevant recommendations accepted by the Supreme Court.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

CM No. 40556/2017

This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of 15 days delay in filing reply to the intervenor application. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 15 days in filing reply to the intervenor application is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 7980/2017

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers-

“In the above premise, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously please

i. Call for the records of the abovementioned election pertaining to the petitioner;

ii. to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.09.2017 and all actions of the respondents’ before and after rejecting the candidature of the petitioner;

iii. to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed nomination for the post of President in the Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) elections on September 04, 2017. On the same day, a provisional list of 36 prospective candidates for the post of President was notified by the Chief Election Officer Sh. S.B. Babbar, the respondent No.2 herein on the basis of preliminary scrutiny. It is averred, on September 05, 2017, the respondent No.2 initiated an enquiry against the petitioner on the basis of an “e-mail received by DUSU 2017-2018 Election Commission” citing a disciplinary action against the petitioner taken by his college in the past. It is averred that the copy of the said e-mail was not supplied to him and the name of the sender of e-mail was kept secret. On September 06, 2017 information was sent by the Principal of the College in the affirmative that disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner. The e-mail of the Principal was sent by the University to Panel Lawyer and Deputy Dean (Legal) for their legal opinions.

3. It is alleged that the Panel Lawyer/Dy. Dean (Legal) had given a hurried affirmation. On the same day, the respondent No.2 declared the petitioner as non-eligible to contest the post of President, DUSU. It is stated the action is arbitrary and the statement of the Principal is contradictory to the character certificate issued. On the same day, the representative of the National Students Union of India, at the request of the petitioner filed a complaint through an e-mail stating arbitrary action of the Election Commission in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated that according to the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations, the candidate shall not have a previous criminal record, that is to say he should not have been tried and/or convicted of any criminal offence or misdemeanor. The candidate shall also not have been subject to any disciplinary action by the University authorities. It is stated the petitioner undertook to abide by the Code of Conduct for the candidates contesting DUSU elections. It is stated, as per the Code of Conduct every candidate is required to furnish an affidavit along with the security deposit, to the effect that (i) He/she does not have any previous criminal record and has not been subjected to any disciplinary action by the University/College (ii) Has not failed in the previous academic year or readmitted in the current year. A reference is also made to Clause 19 of the Code of Conduct, which provides that contravention of any of the above provisions of Code of Conduct may make candidate liable to be striped of his candidature, or his elected post, as the case may be. The College/University may also take appropriate disciplinary action against such violator. Further, Clause 22 of the Code of Conduct states, notwithstanding anything contained in the aforesaid Code of Conduct, the directives of the Supreme Court Judgement dated September 22, 2006 shall prevail. The petitioner submitted an affidavit as req