Delhi HC allows DU students union polls but bars vote count till vandalism fixed

The Delhi high court on Thursday allowed Delhi University (DU) to proceed with its students union elections scheduled for Friday, but barred the administration from counting votes till the court is “satisfied” that all defacement on campus has been removed and damage to public property incurred during the poll campaign reversed.
A bench of chief justice-designate Manmohan and justice Tushar Rao Gedela also directed the varsity to keep the electronic voting machine (EVMs) and ballot papers “secured in a safe place” till further orders.
“This court directs that though the election process may proceed ahead, no counting of votes shall take place – either of DU elections or of colleges – till this court is satisfied that the posters, hoardings, graffiti spray paint are removed, and the [damage to] public property is restored. Let a fresh status report be filed by the university. Till further orders, EVM and ballot boxes shall be kept secured in a safe place. Expenses incurred by the civic agency [to fix the damage] shall be paid by the varsity and DU will have the liberty to recover it from the candidates,” the court said in its order.

Widespread public defacement has been reported through the student union elections. Civic bodies, during the course of hearings, submitted in the high court that more than 16,000 boards, 200,000 posters and pamphlets, and 28,500 banners had been removed in the course of the elections between September 13 and September 25.
Hours after the court’s order, DU announced it will go ahead with polling as scheduled on Friday, but said it will put off the vote-count in sync with the ruling. The university also issued an advisory to colleges, asking them to act against candidates found guilty of defacement.
“The hon’ble high court of Delhi is seriously concerned about the non-compliance of Lyngdoh committee recommendation and NGT orders. If the defacement of public property is being observed and the rules of Lyngdoh committee are violated, the colleges/departments/institutions are required to take strict action against the candidates,” Satyapal Singh, the Delhi University Students’ Union’s (DUSU) chief election officer said in an advisory.
The Lyngdoh Committee was set up by the Supreme Court in 2005 to ensure free and fair conduct of university elections. Among other measures, it 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 high court, meanwhile, also asked DU to pay for expenses incurred by civic agencies to clean the defaced properties and directed the varsity to recover it from candidates, if needed.
It lambasted DU for its “lack of will”, and said that defacement of crores of rupees of public property was allowed due to the varsity’s lack of “supervision, monitoring, will, courage, and authority”, even as it criticised the university for only acting against candidates after the court’s directions, saying the varsity was “merrily going around without taking a stand”.
“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,” the court told advocate Rupal Mohinder who appeared for the varsity.
“You have to send a strong message… these are all people who are pursuing academics. You have all the power. You can say these are not students and it will be the end of it. These are just 21 people. The problem is that there is a lack of will. You lack the courage; you lack the moral authority. We are passing orders… It is your responsibility. You are not performing,” the bench said.
“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,” it added.
The court was responding to an application filed by advocate Prashant Manchanda seeking action against the prospective candidates of DUSU elections and student political outfit 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.
On Wednesday, the court had asked DU to take “stern action” against the widespread defacement of property by candidates contesting in the DUSU election and incurring expenditure in crores, by cancelling or deferring the polls till the defaced walls are repainted and restored.
The court expressed dismay over the candidates spending crores of rupees on the election, and said showed “laundering of money and corruption” by the students and was “worse than general elections.”
The bench, which remarked that polls are a “festival of democracy” and not a “festival of money laundering”, asked DU’s vice chancellor to hold a meeting with Delhi Police, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). The high court said it was imperative that DU tackle the issue with a heavy hand.
On Thursday, DU’s counsel, speaking on instructions of the chief election officer (CEO), admitted to flagrant violations of the Lyngdoh committee recommendations related to polls but stressed that CEO had convened an emergency meeting with the candidates on Wednesday and told them to remove all defacement from public properties. The counsel also requested the high court to not postpone the polls since the varsity had made all arrangements regarding the same but suggested keeping the counting in abeyance till all defacement is addressed.
The court then agreed to the request and asked the DU counsel to file a fresh status report and fixed October 21 as the next date of hearing in the matter.