Most candidates from the two major student organisations — NSUI and ABVP — can’t contest Friday’s Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections, thanks to the Supreme Court’s guidelines.
The NSUI’s Deepak Negi and Umesh Tanwar (for the posts of president and vice-president) and the ABVP’s Rohit Chahal, Lalit Kumar and Ashok Khare (for the posts of president, secretary and joint secretary) — have been debarred for violation of the apex court’s guidelines on students’ union polls.
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the NSUI leaders’ petition challenging an order of Delhi High Court dismissing their plea against rejection of their nomination for the polls for allegedly using printed pamphlets in violation of guidelines based on the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations.
DU’s chief election officer had debarred them from contesting for allegedly using printed pamphlets in violation of the September 22, 2006, guidelines of the apex court.
“We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the high court,” a three-judge bench headed by Justice B.N. Agrawal said rejecting the plea.
The ABVP too has been at the receiving end of the guidelines. A division bench of Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to interfere with DU’s decision to debar the three AVBP candidates from contesting the polls for allegedly violating the code of conduct by exceeding the fixed limit of expenditure and using cars in campaigning.
The bench headed by Chief Justice A.P. Shah, rejected the appeal filed by Chahal, Kumar and Khare against an order of a single judge dismissing their petition against the election officer’s August 28 decision to disqualify them for failing to comply with the guidelines.
The ABVP candidates were found spending money in excess of the fixed amount of Rs 5,000, using cars and organising rallies for the election campaign.
NSUI candidates’ counsel Rajiv Datta contended that Negi and Tanwar never put up posters or used printed pamphlets during campaigning and it could have been done by rivals.
But the bench shot back: “What about the video recording? Have you denied it? You have been frustrating the this court’s order (guidelines)… there can’t be sympathy for students.”