Facts of the Case

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by two students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). The first petitioner was an undergraduate student who contested the elections of the Internal Committee (IC) for 2024–2025 from the undergraduate constituency. The second petitioner was a research scholar. Both petitioners challenged Clause 5(j) of the General Instructions dated November 1, 2024, issued for the IC elections. They also sought to quash the election results declared on November 5, 2024, and requested that the University conduct fresh elections in accordance with the Rules and Regulations for Election of Student Representatives to the IC dated October 28, 2024.

The IC, previously known as the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), was established under the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015, and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Rule 4 of JNU’s Rules for IC provides that the IC shall include three students, one each from the undergraduate, postgraduate and research scholar levels, elected through a transparent and democratic procedure.

On October 28, 2024, JNU issued Election Rules stating that students could vote only within their own constituencies. However, on November 1, 2024, the Presiding Officer issued General Instructions allowing each voter to cast one vote in all three constituencies, undergraduate, postgraduate and research scholar. This change was based on the minutes of a committee meeting held on November 1, 2024, which resolved to expand participation across categories. The petitioners alleged that this decision was arbitrary, contrary to the previously issued Election Rules, and made only four days before polling, thereby prejudicing their campaign and violating the principle of fairness.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioners contended that Clause 5(j) of the General Instructions was illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the Election Rules dated October 28, 2024, which permitted students to vote only within their respective constituencies. They argued that the last-minute modification effectively changed the “rules of the game” in the midst of the electoral process and deprived them of adequate opportunity to campaign. According to them, the sudden expansion of the voter base diluted the representative character of each constituency and resulted in unequal treatment of candidates.

They further submitted that the modification lacked statutory authority and violated the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14, as well as their right to fair participation. The petitioners alleged that the decision disrupted the transparency of the election process and caused confusion among students. They therefore prayed that the Court quash Clause 5(j) and the election results announced on November 5, 2024, and direct JNU to hold fresh elections as per the original Election Rules.

Contentions of the Respondent

JNU and its election authorities opposed the petition. They argued that the General Instructions of November 1, 2024, did not alter the Election Rules in substance but merely expanded the voting base to ensure greater inclusivity and participation. The University stated that the change did not amount to altering the “rules of the game” but rather equalized the number of voters across all three constituencies and reflected a pan-university approach to representation in the IC.

The respondents maintained that every student, irrespective of academic level, was given an equal right to vote across all constituencies, and that no individual was disenfranchised. They emphasized that the elections were conducted in a transparent, democratic and fair manner. The authorities also pointed out that the General Instructions were issued four days before polling, leaving sufficient time for campaigning, and that all candidates had an equal opportunity to reach out to voters. The University therefore urged the Court to refrain from interfering in an academic election that had been conducted in accordance with democratic norms and without any proven irregularity.

Court’s Observations

Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court observed that election disputes require “clear, cogent and credible evidence of illegality or impropriety to warrant interference by the Court.” The Court held that “mere dissatisfaction with decisions or perceived grievances, without substantiating actual prejudice, cannot be the basis for interfering with the elections.”

The Court found that the General Instructions had expanded participation and ensured “a holistic pan-university approach to representation, especially considering that the student representatives were to be part of the IC wherever the complaint involved a student, irrespective of whether such complainant was an undergraduate student, postgraduate student or research scholar.” The Court held that increasing the voting base did not amount to changing the rules of the game but rather strengthened the democratic and inclusive nature of the process.

Justice Pushkarna noted that the petitioners failed to show how the decision had caused them any tangible prejudice or had affected the fairness of the election. The Court remarked that “the petitioners have not provided any evidence as to how the General Instructions altered the vote share, which in turn resulted in the manipulation of the outcome of the election.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prem Chand Somchand Shah v. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 48, the Court reiterated that equality under Article 14 means “all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.” Since all students were allowed to vote equally across constituencies, there was no question of discrimination or arbitrariness.

The Court also referred to Municipal Council, Neemuch v. Mahadeo Real Estate (2019) 10 SCC 738 and Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, reiterating that the scope of judicial review in administrative and policy decisions is limited. The Court emphasized that “it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or decision taken in fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken.”

Justice Pushkarna concluded that the University’s decision was neither arbitrary nor unlawful. The General Instructions did not violate any statutory or constitutional provision and instead enhanced participation and inclusivity. “The General Instructions have enhanced participation by enabling voters to cast their votes across constituencies, thereby promoting greater inclusivity and representation,” the Court stated.

Court’s Order

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition and held that there was no merit in the challenge. The Court found that the elections were conducted in a “transparent, fair and democratic manner” and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any procedural impropriety or material prejudice.

Justice Pushkarna concluded by reiterating judicial restraint in electoral matters:
“Election disputes require clear, cogent and credible evidence of illegality or impropriety to warrant interference. The judiciary should not interfere in elections unless absolutely necessary, and no such necessity has arisen in the present matter.”

Accordingly, the writ petition and all pending applications were dismissed.

Written by Adv. Deeksha Rai