LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

UNIVERSITY OF KERALA versus COUNCIL, PRINCIPALS', COLLEGES, KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 08-12-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY, J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 488 
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 
[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. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered by 
G 
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. 
8 
The instant matter comes up before us by way of 
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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.