Stays counting of votes till all vandalism and defacements reversed
DU to pay all expenses incurred by the civic agencies to fix the damage, with liberty to recover the amount from the candidates
Crores spent on elections; money power “corrupting students”; not a festival of “laundering of money”, court observes
With strict guidelines being enforced by the Election Commission of India to tone down cacophony and display of publicity materials during Lok Sabha and assembly elections, a common man hardly realises that an election is running, till it is over. Gone are the days when the entire populace, willingly or unwillingly, was exposed to the full blast of highly visible and noisy elections.
ADVERTISEMENT
But such guidelines are generally thrown to the winds in the students’ union elections to universities and colleges across the country with blatant defacement of public properties with banners, posters, pamphlets, graffiti, etc, uncontrolled use of vehicles, hooliganism and an unabashed display of money power.
Signalling that enough is enough, the Delhi high Court has come down heavily on the Delhi University for turning a blind eye to the flagrant violations of the Lyngdoh committee recommendations and orders of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in the conduct of the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections on the university campus and affiliated colleges.
The court was responding to an application filed by advocate Prashant Manchanda seeking action against prospective candidates of DUSU elections and student political outfits involved in damaging, defacing, soiling, or destroying public property. The application was filed in a plea disposed of in 2019 seeking complete ban on the defacement of public property of DUSU poll candidates.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice designate Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on Thursday while allowing polling, which was held on Friday, barred the counting of the votes on the university campus as well as colleges till the court is “satisfied” that the posters, hoardings, graffiti spray paint are removed, and the (damage to) public property is restored.
Advertisement
It also ordered that all expenses incurred by the civic agencies (to fix the damage) shall be paid by the varsity, and DU will have the liberty to recover it from the candidates.
Widespread defacement of public property has been reported during the DUSU students’ union elections. The Delhi civic bodies, during the hearings, submitted in the high court that more than 16,000 boards, 200,000 posters and pamphlets, and 28,500 banners had been removed during the elections between September 13 and September 25.
Taking the university authorities to task, the bench observed: “It is your failure. It has happened due to lack of supervision by the university. You are not doing anything; you are not monitoring anything. You are supposed to have a system in place, but you do not have anything in place. Private people brought (this issue) to our notice. DU was merrily going around, and not taking a stand. You are allowing standards to fall.”
On the previous day of hearing, on Wednesday, the court had asked the Delhi University to take stringent action against the candidates indulging in vandalism and defacing public property during the ongoing students’ union elections, calling the situation “worse than the general elections.”
The bench observed that prima facie, expenditure in crores has been incurred by the candidates contesting the polls and stated that the use of this amount of money in students’ union elections is corrupting the students “right at the inception.”
“What is the use of having this election? It’s a festival of democracy, not a festival of laundering of money. This is laundering of money which is taking place over here,” the court remarked.
Among other guidelines, the Lyngdoh Committee, set up by the Supreme Court in 2005 to ensure free and fair conduct of university elections, states that the maximum permitted expenditure per candidate in university elections be ₹5,000 and that the election of a candidate not complying with norms be nullified.
The bench further observed: “Your system has not worked. You should have kept an eye on expenses incurred. Your internal mechanism has failed… Certain officials will have to be held accountable. Your VC should have stepped in. You should have formed some committee. There are flagrant violations not on a minuscule scale but on a large scale.”
