Rajasthan HC dismisses petition challenging cancellation of student union polls

The petitioner argued that the state government had arbitrarily cancelled students union elections, which had been regularly held every year since 2010, except for 2020 and 2021 due to Covid-19

The Rajasthan high court on Saturday dismissed as withdrawn a petition that challenged the circular cancelling students union elections for the 2023-24 session in universities and colleges.

The petitioner argued that he cancellation of student union elections violated the fundamental rights of university and college students to choose their representatives. (File Photo)

Questioning the August 12 circular, the petitioner, Shantanu Pareek, argued before a division bench comprising chief justice Augustine George Masih and justice Sameer Jain that the state government had arbitrarily cancelled student union elections, which had been regularly held every year since 2010, except for 2020 and 2021 due to Covid-19. He stated that the cancellation violated the fundamental rights of university and college students to choose their representatives through student union elections under Articles 19(1)(a) (right to freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India.

“The right to choose one’s representative in student union elections has been specifically recognised as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in the University of Kerala case. The irrational circular is a deliberate attempt by the Respondent to disregard the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee report, which proposed conducting student union elections annually within 6-8 weeks from the start of the academic session,” he further added.

According to the petition, the State of Rajasthan had filed an affidavit before the Rajasthan high court on February 17, 2009, stating that the state and its universities are obligated to hold student union elections following the procedures outlined in the Lyngdoh Committee report. However, the state, in violation of these guidelines, attempted to bypass the report’s recommendations.

In response, the court commented that merely running a YouTube channel does not automatically qualify someone as a social worker. Instead of ruling on the merits of the case, the bench allowed the petitioner the option to withdraw the petition. As a result, the petitioner consented to withdrawing the petition, leading to its dismissal by the court.