UNIVERSITY OF KERALAversusCOUNCIL, PRINCIPALS', COLLEGES, KERALA & ORS.

                   [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 488


A                    UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
                                v.
      COl,JNCIL, PRINCIPALS',COLLEGES,KERALA & ORS.
    (I.A. Nos. 22, 23 & 24 IN Civil appeal No(s). 887 of 2009)
                       DECEMBER 08, 2011
B
       [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND JAGDISH SINGH
                    KHEHAR, JJ.]

         Election laws - Election to students' bodies - Judicial
C   intervention - Election in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)
    - Complaints that elections not taking place in accordance
    with Lyngdoh Committee recommendations accepted by
    Supreme Court - Issuance of notice of contempt to the Vice
    Chancellor and the Registrar of the Jawaharlal Nehru
o   University by Supreme Court - JNU elections to students'
    bodies scheduled to be held, stayed as they were not being
    held in accordance with the Lyngdoh Committee
    recommendations - Interlocutory applications by JNU
    Students' Union - Held: As regards the time period of holding
E   elections, no variation in Lyngdoh Committee
    recommendation is called for - Suggestion that for research
    students, the maximum age limit which can be fixed for them
    to legitimately contest the election could be enhanced to 30
    years, is accepted - Since in JNU, for research students no
F   attendance is taken, the stipulation given in the Lyngdoh
    Committee recommendation about 75% attendance is not
    applicable to election by research students of JNU - As
    regards the repeat criteria and in cases of criminal record of
    candidates, the elections to be held in accordance with the
G   Lyngdoh Committee recommendations - Suggestions that
    photostat copies of pamphlets and manifestos may be
    permitted within the limit of Rs. 50001- as recommended by
    the Lyngdoh Committee, is accepted - No change is called
    for in the grievance mechanism - Thus, since the

H                                488
       UNIVERSITY OF KERALA v. COUNCIL,                   489
      PRINCIPALS',COLLEGES,KERALA & ORS.
recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee are very                A
salutary in nature, no major changes allowed except those
which are absolutely necessary - Interlocutory applications
disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

    Union of India Vs. Association of Democratic Reforms         8
& Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 294 - referred to.
                     Case Law Reference:
    (2002) s sec 294          Referred to.         Para 15
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 22, 23 & 24.         C

                                IN

    Civil Appeal No. 887 of 2009.

      Gopal Subramanium, A. Mariarputham, Gen. V.G.              D
Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Praburamasubramaniam, K. Nobin
Singh, S.B. Meitei, Amitesh Kumar, Ravi Kant, Gopal Singh,
Priti Kumari, A. Subhashini, Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan (for
Arputham Aruna & Co.), G.N. Reddy, C. Kannan, Ravi Shankar,
Anil K. Jha, Chhya Kumari, M.L. Lahoty, Paban K. Sharma,         E
Sukumar Agarwal, B. Burali, Himanshu Shekhar, K.N.
Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish, Sanjay Parekh, Marnia Saxena,
A.N. Singh, Pranav Raina, E.M.S. Anam, K.R. Sasiprabhu, H.K.
Puri, Priya Puri, A.G. Dhanda, S.K. Puri, Shail Kumar Dwivedi,
Lakshmi Raman Singh, D. Bharathi Reddy, Shivaji M. Jadhav,       F
J-liminder Lal, T. Anamika, Radha Shyam Jena, Himanshu
Shekhar, T. Mahipal, P.V. Dinesh, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary,
T.V. George, R.C. Kohli, Liz Mathew, Sana A.R. Khan, Shrish
Kr. Misra and Ajay Kr. Singh for the appearing parties.
                                                                 G
    The following Order of the Court was delivered by

                            ORDER

    Heard Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned amicus curiae, Mr.
Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the Jawaharlal      H
    490    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R


A   Nehru University Students' Union, Mr. A.C. Dhanda, learned
    counsel for Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) authorities and
    also Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel appearing for the Youth
    for Equality Students.

         The instant matter comes up before us by way of
8
    Interlocutory Applications No. 22-23 and 24 filed by the JNU
    Students' Union and the learned Amicus Curiae respectively.

          It appears that by way of judicial intervention, this Court
    wanted to introduce fairness and transparency in the holding
C   of elections to the Students' Unions in various Universities
    across the country. The main thrust behind such intervention is
    because of the fact that the general election scenario in this
    country is murky and suffering from mob-muscle methods which
    have deleterious effects on various elections including conduct
D   of free and fair elections to the students' unions. Elections to
    students' bodies has been badly affected throughout the
    country. It goes without saying that the students are the future
    representatives in various democratic bodies like State
    Legislative Assemblies as well as Parliament in our democratic
E   set up. This Court, therefore, thought that a value based
    mechanism should be inculcated at a very early stage in the
    elections of students' bodies so that the same ultimately
    transforms and improves the quality of general elections to
    strengthen the democratic governance of the country. This
F   Court, therefore, on the basis of important public law principles,
    intervened in the judgment rendered by Kerala High Court
    where the main controversy in a students' body .election was
    whether the form of elections should be Parliamentary or
    Presidential.

G     By an order dated 12th December, 2005, a Division
  Bench of this Court took note of certain valid suggestions given
  by Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the then Additional Solicitor
  General (presently appearing as amicus curiae before us) in
  order to ensure free and fair elections to the students' bodies
H across the country. The learned amicus suggested that there
      UNIVERSITY OF KERALA v. COUNCIL,                       491
     PRINCIPALS',COLLEGES,KERALA & ORS.
are three areas of serious concern which need immediate            A
attention of this Court. They are:
      (a)   Criminalization in Students' Union elections.

      (b)   Financial transparency and limits of expenditure.
                                                                   B
      (c)   Criterion for being eligible to contest elections.

     This Court, after hearing Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the then
Additional Solicitor General and the counsel for Principals of
the Colleges and the students' bodies, found that the              C
suggestions given by learned amicus are prima facie worth
considering and therefore, appointed a Committee consisting
of the following persons:

      1.    Mr. J.S. Lyngdoh, Retd. Chief Election
            Commissioner                                           D

      2.    Dr. Zoya Hasan
     3.     Professor Pratap Bhanu Mehta
     4.     Dr. Dayanand Dongaonkar (Secretary General of          E
            the Association of Indian Universities)

     The said order dated 12th December, 2005 also directs
nomination of two other members by the Ministry of Human
Resources and Development and one of the members should            F
preferably be a Chartered Accountant to consider the financial
angles of such elections.
    Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, a Committee
was constituted by the Central Government and the said
Committee ultimately consisted of the following persons:           G
    Shri J.M. Lyngdoh Chairman
    Former Chief Election Commissioner                Chairman
    Prof. Zoya Hasan Member Professor
    Centre for Political Studies                      Member       H
    492     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A         Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta Member
          President & Chief Executive Centre for
          Policy Research New Delhi                    Member
          Prof. Ved Prakash Member Director
          National Institute of Educational Planning
B         and Administration (NIEPA) New Delhi         Member
          Shri l.P. Singh Member Retired Deputy
          Comptroller and Auditor General              Member
          Prof. Dayanand Dongaonkar Convener
c         Secretary General Association of Indian
          Universities New Delhi                       Convener

       The aforesaid Committee upon a very seirous exercise
  gave detailed recommendations. This Court vide its order
  dated . 22nd· September, 2006 accepted those
D recommendations and directed that those recommendations
  should thereafter be followed scrupulously in holding elections
  to the students' bodies in all Universities across the country.

      We are happy to note that after those recommendations
E are given, the standard of fairness in the matter of holding
  elections to students' bodies across the country has
  substantially improved.

       Afterwards, notice of this Court was drawn to certain
F complaints to the effect that elections were taking place not in
  accordance with those recommendations. This Court vide an
  order dated 24th October, 2008, issued notice of contempt to
  the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the Jawaharlal Nehru
  University and also stayed the JNU elections which were
  scheduled to be held on 3rd November, 2008 as they are not
G being held in accordance with the Lyngdoh Committee
  recommendations which were accepted by this Court.

         Pursuant to such notice of contempt, the University
    ·authorities appeared before this Court and made it clear that
H
      UNIVERSITY OF KERALA v. COUNCIL,                      493
     PRINCIPALS',COLLEGES,KERALA & ORS.
the elections in JNU are held under the Jawaharlal Nehru           A
University Act and the student bodies are holding such elections
as autonomous bodies and the JNU authorities do not have
much control in those matters.

     Since the elections to the student bodies of JNU were         B
stayed pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court dated 24th
October, 2008, interlocutory applications were filed by the
student bodies seeking leave of this Court for the holding of
elections in accordance with the Lyngdoh Committee
recommendations and if necessary by seeking certain suitable       C
modifications to the existing norms so that elections are held
in a manner which is substantially in tune with the
recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee.

    It may also be noticed that prayers were also made for
vacation of the order of the stay issued by this Court on 24th     D
October, 2008.                                        ·

    We have heard learned counsel for the parties and the
amicus in connection with the aforesaid prayers and after
hearing parties, we pass the following order.
                                                                   E
     This Court is confronted with two competing claimsof public
interest: On the one hand, the Court has to ensure purity in the
election process and on the other hand, is the right to exercise
the vitally important liberty of the students to choose their
representative through election. This Court has held that this     F
right to choose one's representative through an election is
virtually an extension of one's fundamental right to freedom of
expression (See Union of India Vs. Association of Democratic
Reforms & Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 294). Thus, it partakes of the
character of a fundamental right.                                  G
     We thought that such a right cannot be possibly stifled by
a Court order. Thus, we are trying to strike a balance and in
doing so, we have fol.lowed the concept of reasonable
restrictions, which is a part of our Constitutional doctrine.
                                                                   H
    494    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      We have been told by the learned counsel appearing for
  the University that JNU is primarily a research oriented
  University. There are some students in the language courses
  but JNU is basically a post-graduate University. JNU being
  primarily a research oriented university, it has certain unique
B and distinct features of its own.

         We have heard learned Amicus Curiae on the areas of
    relaxation which have been sought by the students' union and
    also considered the suggestions given by learned amicus.
c        One of the issues is for the time period of holding of
    elections. After considering the suggestions given by the
    learned amicus and learned counsel for the parties, we do not
    think that any variation in Lyngdoh Committee recommendation
    in that aspect is called for.
D
       The next suggestion is coming up on the question of age
  restriction of candidates. After considering the suggestions
  given by learned amicus and also after r.earing learned counsel
  appearing for the students' bodies, we accept the suggestion
E given by learned amicus that for research students, the
  maximum age limit which can be fixed for them to legitimately
  contest the election could be enhanced to 30 years.

         Insofar as attendance criteria is concerned, we have been
    told by the learned counsel appearing for the University
F   authorities that in JNU, for research students no attendance is
    taken. Therefore, the stipulation given in the Lyngdoh
    Committee recommendation about 75% attendance is not
    applicableinsofar as election by research students of JNU is
    concerned.
G
       So far as the repeat criteria is concerned, we do not think
  that any change is required. We reiterate that the elections
  should be held in accordance with the Lyngdoh Committee
  recommendations. Similarly, in cases of criminal record of
H candidates, the recommendation of Lyngdoh Committee should
        UNIVERSITY OF KERALA v. COUNCIL,                  495
       PRINCIPALS',COLLEGES,KERALA & ORS.

be followed.                                                      A

     Insofar as the use of printed material and pamphlets is
concerned, we accept the suggestions given by the learned
amicus that photostat copies of pamphlets and manifestos may
be permitted within the limit of Rs. 5000/- as recommended        B
by the Lyngdoh Committee.

    Insofar as grievance mechanism is concerned, we think
no change is called for.

     Since we are of the view that the recommendations of the     C
Lyngdoh Committee are very salutary in nature, we have not
allowed any major changes except those which are absolutely
necessary.

     We hope that elections may be satisfactorily held in view
                                                                  0
of the relaxations permitted by this order.

    With the above directions, the interlocutory applications
stand disposed of.
     Before parting with the matter, this Court records its       E
profound appreciation for the very competent assistance
rendered by the learned amicus in resolving these issues, which
are of vital importance.

N.J.                    Interlocutory applications disposed of.
                                                                  F




                                                                  G




                                                                  H