Back
Upholds for Women in Student Union Polls
Justice Ravindra Maithani dismisses four writ petitions, holds that the is not a and the State can issue directions under Article 15(3) for women’s representation.
The has upheld the of the posts of Treasurer and Joint Secretary for girl students in the student union elections of colleges affiliated with , Nainital. Dismissing four writ petitions , the court ruled that the was empowered to issue the Government Order dated under , and that the University’s had validly approved the .
Background: A Last-Minute
The student union elections were scheduled for in affiliated colleges and for at the University level. On , the University Registrar issued a press communiqué announcing the election dates. However, on , the directed all government universities to provide 50% to girl students in student union elections, noting that female enrolment exceeded 65%. The very next day, the issued an office order reserving several posts, including Joint Secretary and Treasurer, for girl students.
Four students—Bharat Kesarwani, Ajay Kumar, Mukesh Pandey (who intended to contest for Treasurer), and Manas Arya (who intended to contest for Joint Secretary)—challenged the Government Order and the University’s office order. They argued that the was introduced without following the prescribed procedure under the recommendations, that the State had no power under to issue such a direction, and that the University had bypassed the amendment process in the student union constitution (Article 19).
Arguments: Procedural vs. Constitutional Powers
The petitioners’ counsel contended that the framework, approved by the in , required student representation to be regulated by statute. They also argued that the Government Order was not a policy matter and could not be implemented without amending the student union constitution through the . Moreover, they pointed out that the actual of about 42% fell short of the 50% contemplated by the State.
The State and the University countered that the is neither a nor a common law right—it is a . They relied on the ’s decisions in (upholding for women under Article 15(3)) and (recognizing to make reservations). The University’s counsel highlighted that the , the highest body of the University, had convened an emergency meeting on and approved the . He also pointed out that the student union constitution allowed amendments by the and that the formal incorporation of the amendment was not a prerequisite for validity.
Court’s Analysis: No Infringement of Rights
Justice Maithani observed that the law is well settled: “the right to contest election is not a . In the instant case, the petitioners have not been stopped from contesting election to an unreserved post. They are free to contest election to some other post.” This observation was central to the court’s reasoning.
The court further held that the can issue directions under Article 162 of the Constitution, and the impugned Government Order was specifically issued under Article 15(3) “so as to make better provision for girl students in the University, so as to provide them proper representation.” The court rejected the argument that the was invalid because the University provided only 42% instead of 50%, stating that “it makes less affect on the validity of this notification.”
On the procedural challenge, the court noted that the had resolved on to give effect to the Government Order—a fact recorded in the office order. The court clarified that deals with amendments proposed by the student union itself and “does not speak of amendment that is incorporated by the Vice Chancellor itself or by the .” Since the had taken a call, “merely because formal amendment has not been incorporated in the constitution of student union, it does not invalidate the office order dated 18.09.2026.”
Key Observations from the Judgment
- “Law is well settled that right to contest election is not a .”
- “The may issue Government Orders under Article 162 of the . In the instant matter, the impugned Government Order dated 17.09.2026 has been issued under Article 15(3) of the so as to make better provision for girl students in the University.”
- “It is not also disputed that the amendment in the constitution of student union could be proposed by the and in the instant matter, the has taken a call on 18.09.2026. Merely because formal amendment has not been incorporated in the constitution of student union, it does not invalidate the office order dated 18.09.2026.”
Decision and Implications
The court dismissed all four writ petitions , allowing the elections to proceed as scheduled. The ruling reaffirms that reservations for women in student union elections, even when introduced close to the election date, are constitutionally valid if backed by the State’s power under Article 15(3). It also clarifies that university executive councils have the authority to implement such reservations without going through the full amendment process of the student union constitution. The decision is likely to encourage other state universities to adopt similar policies to enhance women’s representation in student governance.
