Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th September, 2025
ROOP BANSAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashu Bidhuri, Mr. Swapnam Prakash Singh, Ms. Shabana Hussain, Ms. Shivani Bansal, Advocates
(M:8447712548)
Email:bidhurisinghassociates@gmail.com
& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Advocates for University of Delhi
Mr. Mayank Yadav, Mr. Jitender Verma, Advocates for R-3 and 4
(M:9213930111)
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to accept the petitioner’s nomination papers for the post of President in the Students’ Union Elections of Satyawati College, University of Delhi, for the academic session 2025-2026.
2. There is further prayer to consequently allow the petitioner to contest the College Union Elections 2025-2026 for the post of President, by including his name in the final list of valid candidates, by amending/rectifying the Notice dated 11th September, 2025, issued by the Election Officer.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide 2nd year student of the B.Com. Programme at Satyawati College, University of Delhi. He is aggrieved by the fact that his name has not been included in the final list of persons, and his nomination has been rejected, without granting any hearing to him.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted his nomination papers for the post of President within the prescribed time. However, in gross violation of the University Rules, the Lyngdoh Committee Guidelines and Principles of Natural Justice, the nomination papers of most of the second, third and fourth year students, including that of the petitioner, have been illegally rejected.
5. It is submitted that the ground for rejection of the nomination of the petitioner and other students is that they did not meet the minimum attendance requirement of 75%, as mandated by the Lyngdoh Committee and College Election Rules.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on enquiry, the petitioner has discovered glaring discrepancies in his attendance, in the subjects of Hindi, English and Accounts, wherein, multiple classes that have been attended by the petitioner, have not been taken into account.
7. It is submitted that the petitioner was never given any opportunity to be heard prior to the cancellation of his nomination, which is in direct violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.
8. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Annexure F of the present petition, pertaining to the Award Entry Details. By referring to the said document, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has procured good marks in the internal assessment and other tutorials, which also factor in the attendance record.
9. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to Annexure G of the present petition, which is stated to be attendance register for English language, wherein, the petitioner’s attendance for the month of February, 2025, has been marked for seven days. Thus, it is submitted that the said attendance of the petitioner has not been taken into account.
10. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to Annexure H of the present petition, to submit that the Hindi Professor, i.e., Dr. Manoj Kumar, had been taking online classes in the month of May, 2025, and the petitioner has duly attended the said classes.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the aforesaid document to show the chats in the official WhatsApp group created by the Hindi Professor, wherein, links were sent for online classes and where the students marked their attendance through the WhatsApp group.
12. Thus, it is submitted that since all the attendance of the petitioner has not been taken into account, the nomination of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected on the ground of the low attendance.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4, i.e., Satyawati College (Morning) and Election Officer, submits that the records of the petitioner have been duly verified. As per the duly verified attendance records of the petitioner, petitioner has an attendance of only 65%. However, it is submitted that as per the requirement in terms of the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee, attendance of minimum 75% or more is required for the purposes of standing for elections.
14. It is submitted that the petitioner had also made a representation before the Grievance Committee and the Grievance Committee has already rejected the representation of the petitioner.
15. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not granted any hearing even by the Grievance Committee.
16. Considering the submissions made by the parties, this Court notes that vide Notice issued by the College, information regarding the scrutiny of the nomination papers of various candidates, was given in the following manner:
17. Reading of the aforesaid Notice shows that it has been stated in categorical terms that the nomination of the various candidates has been rejected on the ground of not fulfilling the minimum 75% attendance criteria, as per the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee.
18. Accordingly, it is evident that a student, who does not meet the criteria of having minimum 75% attendance, cannot be allowed to stand for elections.
19. Thus, in case, the attendance of the petitioner is below the minimum 75% attendance criteria, the College would be within its authority to reject the nomination of the petitioner, or any other candidate.
20. Considering the submissions made before this Court and the documents placed on record, this Court is of the view that a personal hearing be granted to the petitioner by the Grievance Committee today at 2:00 PM.
21. The petitioner shall be allowed to show his attendance sheet and proof of attendance of other classes, as attached along with the present petition, to the Grievance Committee, which the Court is informed, consists of five Assistant Professors of the college, as its members.
22. At the time of hearing by the Grievance Committee, the concerned Professors for the subjects of Hindi, English and Accounts, shall also be present.
23. The records, as may be submitted by the petitioner before the Grievance Committee, shall be duly considered and the attendance of the petitioner shall be calculated again, in front of the petitioner, during the course of the hearing.
24. The petitioner shall be duly intimated about his attendance, by the Grievance Committee, during the course of hearing itself, after collating all the record.
25. In case, the petitioner meets the minimum requirement of 75% attendance, the petitioner’s nomination shall be accepted and the petitioner shall be allowed to contest the elections.
26. In case, the attendance of the petitioner is below the minimum 75% attendance criteria, the petitioner shall be communicated the said fact. In that eventuality, needless to state, the nomination of the petitioner shall stand rejected.
27. In case, the nomination of the petitioner is accepted by the College, on meeting the minimum attendance criteria, the petitioner shall be allowed to campaign in the extraordinary circumstances, till 9:00 PM today.
28. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with pending application, is disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2025