IMPORTANT POINT
The Supreme Court's directives on age limits for student elections must be strictly followed, and non-holding of elections does not justify further relaxation of these limits.

JUDGMENT :

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

1. The petitioner is a research student in respondent No. 1-Jawaharlal Nehru University [“JNU”]. He enrolled as a Ph.D. student in JNU in the year 2017, and contested in the Students’ Union elections in 2017 and 2019. He has filed this writ petition with regard to elections which were scheduled in March 2024, in terms of circular issued by JNU on 07.03.2024. The petitioner’s grievance is that JNU has fixed a maximum age limit of 30 years for research students to contest in the said elections. The petitioner crossed the age of 30 years on 15.10.2023. He seeks an extension of two years, on the ground that Students’ Union elections were not held in JNU since the year 2020 in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. The petitioner first ventilated this grievance by way of an earlier writ petition [W.P. (C) 3792/2024] filed before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of on 14.03.2024, with the direction that petitioner’s representation would be considered by the Vice Chancellor of JNU and decided after a personal hearing, on the same day itself.

3. The Vice Chancellor, JNU communicated her decision to the petitioner on 14.03.2024, holding that the upper age limit of 30 years had been set by the Lyngdoh Committee [“Committee”] appointed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, in terms of directions of the Supreme Court and orders passed by the Supreme Court on 22.09.2006 and 18.12.2011.

4. The petitioner has now assailed the said decision by way of the present writ petition. The reliefs sought are as follows:

“1. To set aside the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the Vice Chancellor-Respondent No. 3, whereby the Petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2024, requesting for an age relaxation of 2 years to contest the student union election in the Respondent No. 1 University was rejected.

2. To pass a direction to the Respondent No. 1 University to relax the maximum age by 2 years to contest elections in the Respondent No. 1 University, by passing a corrigendum to the circular dated 07.03.2024 or in the alternative.

3. Quash and set aside the circular dated 07.03.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 3 to the extent where it prescribes the maximum age limit.

4. Pass any other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and to meet the ends of justice.”

5. Although the elections in respect of which the petitioner had sought the extension of age limit was held in March 2024, Mr. Shivendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that elections for the year 2024-25 will be held in March, 2025 and, if the relief sought by the petitioner is granted, he would be eligible to contest the said elections.

6. In view of this submission, I have heard Mr. Singh and Mr. Vasanth Rajasekaran, learned Standing Counsel for JNU on the merits of the petition.

7. The decision on this petition, in my view, turns on the report of the Lyngdoh Committee and the orders of the Supreme Court referred to above. The Lyngdoh Committee was constituted by the Government of India in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court, which was seized with the issue of Students’ Union elections in SLP (C) No. 24295/2004, University of Kerala v. Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala & Ors.

8. The Lyngdoh Committee submitted its report on 23.05.2006, which was considered by the Supreme Court on 22.09.2006. The Court accepted certain recommendations of the Committee as an interim measure. The following recommendations, extracted from the order, are relevant for the present purposes:

“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 con