Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46726
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
HARIKRISHNAN T.P. – Appellant
Versus
THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 31019 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.SHAHANAS SALMA ABBAS, SHRI.SIDHARTH T., SHRI.ABDUL SAHAD M.H.
For the Respondents: SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC
The court held that established age limits for student elections were constitutionally valid, but emphasized the necessity for timely challenges to electoral regulations.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Discrimination in eligibility criteria for elections - The petitioner, an LLM student, challenged the rejection of his nomination on age limit imposed by University for student union elections, arguing it lacked rational basis and was discriminatory compared to undergraduates - The Court noted that age limits for elections are based on recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee but dismissed the petition on grounds of belated filing and awareness of rules at the time of application (Paras 2, 5, and 7).
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The scope of intervention under Article 226 is limited where alternative efficacious remedies are available; the delay in filing the writ petition undermines the claim for urgent relief (Paras 6 and 7).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a postgraduate law student, was denied nomination to student union elections under age limit regulations. He contended the age limit was discriminatory as flexibility existed for other programs but not for LLM, violating constitutional protections.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the timelines and regulations as valid, recognizing the prescribed norms while regretting the petition's timing for intervention.
Issues: The core issues were whether the age limit was arbitrarily discriminatory and the implications of not providing candidates with age relaxation similar to that afforded to undergraduates.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that age restrictions, informed by external committee recommendations, were legitimate but outlined that rights must still be pursued without undue delay in judicial processes.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rejection of election candidacy due to arbitrary age limit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's grievances regarding discriminatory practices in election rules. (Para 3) |
| 3. importance of timely judicial intervention and adherence to set regulations. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. dismissal of writ petition on account of untimeliness. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2025 The petitioner is 4th semester LL.M student at Government Law College, Ernakulam affiliated to the 1st respondent-University. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P3 election notification on 04.08.2025, pursuant to which the petitioner submitted his nomination. However, his nomination was rejected on the ground of age limit.
2. Ext.P3 notification is silent with respect to the maximum age prescribed for Postgraduate law students contesting in College Union Elections of Colleges affiliated to the 1st respondent-University. As of now, the maximum age limit fixed for contesting in College Union Elections for a three year LL.B student and for a final year LL.M student is 25 years. The arbitrary prescription of age without any rational basis has resulted in depriving the petitioner of his right to participate in the democratic process of the student union elections.
3. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary and unreasonable action of the respondents in rejecting his candidature, the petitioner has been left with no efficacious alternative remedy but to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .
.
4 I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 3.
5. The grievance projected is that for Postgraduate students, the maximum age limit to legitimately contest an election is fixed as 24 to 25 years. Though for undergraduates, the age limit is 17 to 22 years, there is a provision for relaxation of that age limit. As far as Postgraduate students are concerned, there is no provision for relaxation. The petitioner would further urge that relaxation has been granted as per Ext.P4 even to B.Ed and LL.B students. Denial of the same to the LLM students is highly discriminatory and offends Article
14 of the Constitution of India .
6. It is to be noted that the age limits for election to the higher educational institutions are prescribed on the basis of the recommendation in the Lyngdoh Committee Report. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the date of notification was 04.08.2025. The petitioner was aware of the upper age limit at least on 04.08.205. The last date for receipt of nomination was 12.08.2025. The scrutiny of the nomination fell on the same day. Valid nominations were published on 12.08.2025. Last date for withdrawal of nomination was 13.08.2025. Final list of valid nominations were published on 13.08.2025. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 18.08.2025. Polling is scheduled to be held on 21.08.2025.
7. At this belated stage, no interference can be made at the instance of the petitioner.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
