1. 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 I 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, however, not to base such nomination system on purely academic merit, as is being practised throughout the country.

6.1.3. In cases where elections are not being held, or where the nomination model prevails, the nomination model should be allowed to continue for a limited period of time. It is to be noted that the nomination system suffers from several flaws, and must only be resorted to as an interim measure.

6.1.4. Subject to the recommendations in respect of the possible model of elections, allinstitutions must over a period of 5 years, convert from the nomination model to a structured election model, that may be based on a system of parliamentary (indirect) elections, or on the presidential (direct) system, or a hybrid of both. It is highly desirable that all institutions follow this mechanism of gradual conversion, especially for privately-funded institutions that prefer a status quo situation.

6.1.5. All institutions must conduct a review of the student representation mechanism. The first review may be conducted after a period of 2 years of the implementation of the mechanism detailed above, and the second review may be conducted after the 3rd or the 4th year of implementation. The primary objective of these reviews will be to ascertain the success of the representation and election mechanism in each individual institution, so as to decide whether or not to implement a full-fledged election structure. Needles to say these reviews will be based on a consideration of the views and suggestions of all stakeholders, such as students, faculty, administration, student bodies, and parents.

6.1.6. Institutions must, as a primary objective, subject to the pertinent issue of discipline or campus, seek to implement a structured system of student elections by conclusion of a period of 5 years from the date of the implemention of the recommendations.

6.1.7. Subject to the autonomy of the universities in respect of the choice of the mode of election, all universitites must institute an apex student representative body that represents all students, colleges and departments coming under the particular university. In the event that the university is geographically widespread, individual colleges may constitute their own representative bodies, which would further elect representatives for the apex universities' bodies.

6.1.8. The uniion/representative body so elected shall only comprise of regular students on the rolls of the institution. No faculty member, nor any member of the administration shall be permitted to hold any post on the executive of such representative body, nor shall be allowed to be a member of any such representative body.

6.2. Modes of elections

6.2.1. A system of direct election of the office-beare