The court emphasized the necessity for precise pleadings and evidence in legal proceedings, particularly in electoral disputes, asserting that vague allegations cannot substantiate claims in a writ petition.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The respondents 11 and 12 in W.P.(C)No.37216 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The writ petitioners are students of a private College, by name Fathima Matha National College, Kollam, affiliated to the University of Kerala. They filed W.P.(C)No.37216 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following reliefs;

“1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, or order declaring the election process to be conducted by Fathima College for the College Union Election 2025-26 as illegal, null and void for non-compliance with the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations and University notification.

2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, or order Directing the University of Kerala to conduct a fresh election in Fathima College in accordance with the schedule and norms prescribed under the notification dated 17.09.2025.

3. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, or order Directing the Registrar of the University to conduct an enquiry into the manipulation of attendance records and illegal acceptance of nominations of ineligible candidates.

4. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, or order staying the Election to be held by the 3^rd respondent on 10.10.2025 till the disposal of this Writ petition in the interest of Justice”.

3. According to the writ petitioners, the college union election for the academic year 2025 - 2026 in their college is being held in total violation of Ext.P1 University notification dated 17.09.2025. The writ petitioners allege that several students were denied a fair opportunity to file nominations, as the publication of the electoral roll and the scrutiny of the nominations were conducted simultaneously. According to the writ petitioners, the Head of the department, in clear violation of the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations and the directions issued by the University, undertook the receipt and scrutiny of nomination papers instead of by the duly designated returning officer. Consequently, several valid nominations were arbitrarily rejected, while certain others were accepted without justification.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, on behalf of the 2^nd respondent in the writ petition, University of Kerala, a statement dated 09.10.2025 was filed. On behalf of the college, the Principal of the college filed a counter-affidavit dated 01.12.2025 opposing the reliefs sought for. Similarly, the Returning Officer filed a counter affidavit dated 01.12.2025 opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Ext.R4 (a) document.

5. The appellants herein were not initially made parties to the writ petition. They were self-impleaded in the writ petition as per the order in I.A.No.1 of 2026.

6. On 20.02.2026, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, whereby the Registrar of the University was directed to take an appropriate decision on the complaints so far received by him and take expeditious steps to conduct the election following due process of law. Depending upon the decision to be taken on the complaints, the Registrar was directed either to re- notify the election or to continue the election from any appropriate stage pursuant to the notification dated 17.09.2025. Being aggrieved, the additional respondents 11 and 12, who were self-

impleaded in the writ petition filed the present writ appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for respondents 11 to