New Delhi [India]: The Delhi High Court issued a stern warning to Delhi University (DU) and Election Authority, indicating that the Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) polls could be deferred if the defacement caused during the election campaign is not properly addressed and said ‘elections are meant to be a “festival of democracy,” not a platform for laundering money’.
The bench led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan also comprising Justice Tushar Rao Gedela showed serious concerns about the integrity of the election process in light of the excessive spending and rule violations taking place during poll campaign of Delhi University Student Union.
In its remarks, the bench questioned the enormous amount of money being spent by the candidates during the elections, suggesting that such expenditures raised concerns about transparency and fairness
The court also specifically directed that all spray-painted walls and other forms of vandalism must be cleaned up.The court further emphasized that the Vice Chancellor must take these issues seriously, and if necessary, the polls could be annulled.
The court strongly urged Delhi University to take decisive action, stating, “You’ve to come down with a heavy hand,” reinforcing that the authorities must ensure strict compliance with election regulations.
Later, Delhi High Court deferred the hearing to tomorrow after the concerned authorities assured the court that they would hold a meeting with all stakeholders later in the evening to address the ongoing issue of defacement and violations during the election campaign.
The court had earlier expressed strong displeasure over the large-scale vandalism and defacement of public property during the election campaign and had warned of possible action, including the deferment of the DUSU polls, if the situation was not rectified. The authorities’ commitment to engage with stakeholders suggests that a solution is being sought to comply with the court’s concerns before the next hearing.
In the ongoing Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) election matter, Delhi University informed the Delhi High Court that it had recently issued a circular to all contesting candidates, making them aware of the rules, regulations, and the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee. The university emphasized that it is taking steps to ensure that candidates comply with these guidelines to maintain the decorum and legality of the election process.
The Lyngdoh Committee guidelines, which govern student elections in universities across India, aim to ensure fair practices, including limits on campaign spending and the prohibition of defacement of public property. This move comes in response to the High Court’s concerns over defacement and misuse of funds during the DUSU election campaign.
On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court expressed strong disapproval of public authorities for their inaction to the widespread vandalism and property defacement across Delhi during the run-up to the Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) elections. The court was particularly critical of the inaction by Delhi University and the election authorities, emphasizing that they have the power to take concrete action against those responsible for violating rules and damaging public property.
The court remarked that the scale of defacement across the city was alarming, and it called out the authorities for merely issuing orders without ensuring their enforcement. It stressed that authorities are not powerless (“not handicapped”) and that it is their duty to enforce these orders effectively, rather than just passing them on paper.
Adv. Prashant Manchanda, the petitioner, brought attention to the rampant defacement of public and metro properties, particularly by candidates contesting the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections, set for September 27, 2024. The defacement includes damage to bus stands, walls of police stations, university walls, and other public areas, he apprised the court.
Advocate Manchanda highlighted the violation of a previous Delhi High Court judgment in Prashant Manchanda vs. UOI (W.P.(C) 7824 and 8251 of 2017), where the court had framed guidelines to address such defacement issues.
The court’s concern arose from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Prashant Manchanda, which sought a complete ban on the defacement of public property, particularly during election periods. The PIL also called for directions to civic agencies to impose heavy fines on political parties and aspiring candidates, aiming to deter them from further damaging public spaces.