The Delhi High Court on Wednesday recorded that there is “prima facie violation of anti-defacement guidelines” in the conduct of the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections, scheduled on September 18.
The court directed the Delhi Police to assist the varsity during the elections and jointly take stock of the situation. It has also sought an affidavit from the authorities detailing the steps taken by them to curtail such violations.
Advocate Prashant Manchanda, in his application, has alleged major violations of Lyngdoh Committee guidelines and DUSU code of conduct, and highlighted the “massive defacement and display of money and muscle power”. The application also lists 12 prospective candidates who are primarily involved in the violations.
During last year’s DUSU elections, after similar violations were highlighted by Manchanda, the Delhi HC had directed a stay on the counting of votes on September 26, 2024, till the defacement of public property by the candidates is cleaned up. The plea was ultimately disposed of on November 11, 2024, when the court allowed for counting, with the counting delayed by more than a month.
Referring to photographs annexed by Manchanda in his latest application, the Bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela recorded that the court prima facie finds that “there have been violations owing to the ongoing elections”.
“It is generally observed that the candidate and supporters tend to deviate from these rules in their enthusiasm to intensify their campaign. Without diluting the duties of DU, the Delhi Police and traffic department, we observe that candidates aspiring for contesting elections need to understand that unless they conduct themselves in an appropriate and democratic manner, the institution they intend to man once elected, are not likely to perform their functions. The material brought to our notice is a telling story as to how these contestants are violating all settled norms of conduct,” the Bench recorded in its order.
Refusing to accept DU’s stance that the application is preemptive and violations are being dealt with, CJ Upadhyaya further remarked that the actions appear to be “inadequate”.
The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on September 15.