AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—The writ petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Law (B.L.) final year studying in Dr.Ambedkar Law College, Chennai.
According to the petitioner, as a representative of the students, for the purpose of raising certain issues with the University authorities, viz., 3rd
respondent, it needs a student forum to be established by way of election among the students, but the 3rd respondent has stopped conducting
election among the students for the past 15 years, whereas other Arts and Science Colleges run by the Government are conducting elections. The
failure to conduct election among the students results in the violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of
the Constitution of India. In spite of many representations to the 3rd respondent in these years, the 3rd respondent has not conducted the election.
The Supreme Court while dealing with a case from the Kerala High Court wherein the High Court has allowed the educational institutions to
prohibit political activities within the college campus and to forbear the students from organising and attending meetings other than official ones, has
directed the Ministry of Human Resources Development to set up a Committee to examine the said aspect. As per the direction of the Supreme
Court, the Ministry of Human Resources Development has appointed a Six Member Committee headed by the former Election Commissioner
Mr.J.M. Lyngdoh in December, 2005. The Committee, after an elaborate enquiry, has submitted its report in May, 2006 to the Ministry of Human
Resources Development and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has passed orders to implement the Committee''s recommendations in
respect of students'' union election.
It is the case of the petitioner that based on the verdict of the Supreme Court, the University Grants Commission directed the Universities and
collegiate authorities to conduct free and fair elections. Based on the said recommendations, the petitioner has submitted representations to the first
respondent, viz., the Government of Tamil Nadu, Law Department and the 3rd respondent, viz., the Vice Chancellor of Dr.Ambedkar Law
University, Chennai, since there was no response, he has made a further representation on 10.9.2007 to all the respondents. The second
respondent, the Director of Legal Studies, in his letter dated 14.9.2007, has informed the petitioner that the representation has been forwarded to
the first respondent Government and the first respondent has to pass orders. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition
for direction against the first respondent to dispose of the representations of the petitioner dated 9.8.2007 and 10.9.2007 in the light of the
Lyngdoh Committee''s report.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents.
Mr.Prabhakaran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Committee constituted by the Ministry of Human
Resources Development headed by Mr.J.M. Lyngdoh submitted its report and recommendations based on which the Supreme Court has also
given its verdict in December, 2006. In respect of formation of students'' Union and fair election to it, the Supreme Court has directed the
University Grants Commission to order all the Universities to conduct fair election and in the light of the said direction, the 1st and 3rd respondents
have a duty to conduct election to the students'' union of the 3rd respondent University. He would also refer to the letter of the Director of Legal
Studies, viz., the second respondent herein dated 14.9.2007 in which the second respondent has informed the petitioner that the matter has been
referred to the Government, viz., the first respondent. In view of the same, his submission is that the first and third respondents have to consider the
representations in the light of the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee and order election to the students'' Union in the 4th respondent
College.
It is not in dispute that the matter is pending with the Government. Learned Counsel for the University would submit that inasmuch as the legal
issue raised in the writ petition has been decided by the Supreme Court, any order of this Court will have to be followed. In the light of the above
submissions made by the respective counsel and based on the records, before giving suitable directions, it is incumbent to note some of the
recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee.
The Committee, while referring the report of University Grants Commission, 1981, has stated that the political activities in Universities is natural
because it is a community of thinking people, however, noticed that the political activities in the academic campus have become degenerated in
nature. Even though the Lyngdoh Committee was critical of the wide ranging mistreats in the campuses, it has recognised that some of the
institutions in the name of campus discipline and decorum often used to crush even the genuine protests of the students against misdeeds and
exploitation of the management and that was found in many cases where colleges were owned by political leaders. A reference has been made to
the pathetic situation in the State of Maharashtra and taking into consideration all the said aspects, the Committee has arrived at a conclusion that
democratically elected body of students in campuses and Universities is inevitable and recommended immediate measures to establish such body.
The Lyngdoh Committee, as its first and foremost submission, made it clear that as far as the mode of such election to students'' Union is
concerned, that right is vested with the University. The Committee has said, ''subject to the autonomy of the Universities in respect of choice of
mode of election, all Universities must constitute an apex students representative body that represents all students, colleges and departments
coming under a particular University. In the event of the University being widespread, individual colleges may constitute their own representative
bodies which would further elect representatives for the apex students representative body. Therefore, it is clear that the 3rd respondent University
must have students'' Union and the same must be by way of election, the process of which must be determined by the University. While rejecting
the findings of the Kerala High Court that educational institutions should prohibit political activities within the college campus and organising or
attending meetings other than official ones within the college campus, the Supreme Court has found that the academic excellence is to be the
eligibility criterion for contesting the election.
The Committee also found that unlike the elections in some of the campuses including Delhi University where multi-coloured posters and convoy
of vehicles supported by the power of money and muscle dominate, there are many campuses in the country where elections are held in a healthy
atmosphere and pave way for democratic discourse and debate among the student community. Therefore, the basis for the Lyngdoh Committee
recommendations is to uphold the democratic rights of students and to withdraw all the draconian laws that banned students Union election and
democratic activities. Therefore, the overall study of the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee shows that (i) the presence of students
Union in every University enables the students'' representatives to express their grievance to the University and management; (ii) the election to the
said students'' Union should be held in a democratic manner; (iii) the respective Universities shall form a scheme for the purpose of conducting such
elections with necessary criteria taking into consideration the academic excellence as an eligibility criterion for contesting election; and (iv) while
setting out the criteria for election, it is open to the University not only to fix the method of election, of course in a democratic manner, but also to
lay down various functions of such elected students Union.
In view of the abovesaid principles which are culled out from the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee which has been approved by
the Supreme Court, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents 1 to 3 viz., the State Government, the Law Department and
the Vice Chancellor of Dr.Ambedkar Law University to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 9.8.2007 and 10.9.2007 and pass
appropriate orders in giving directions to the students election in the 4th respondent College by framing necessary Scheme in the light of the
Lyngdoh Committee recommendations as culled out above and such orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No costs.