K.Saktheeananth v. The Secretary to Government Law Department & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:2-1-2008CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.34883 of 2007.....K.Saktheeananth... Petitionervs.1.The Secretary to Government Law Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 0092.The Director of Legal Studies, Directorate of Legal Studies, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Complex, Nandanam, Chennai-35.3.The Vice Chancellor, Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-28.4.The Principal, Dr.Ambedkar Law College, Chennai-104.... RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus as stated therein.For petitioner: Mr. Prabhakaran for Mr.W.M.Abdul MajeedFor respondents: Ms. Dakshayani Reddy Government Advocate for R.1,2 & 4. Mr.V.M.G.Ramakannan for R.3.. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDERThe writ petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Law (B.L.) finalyear studying in Dr.Ambedkar Law College, Chennai. According to thepetitioner, as a representative of the students, for the purpose ofraising certain issues with the University authorities, viz., 3rdrespondent, it needs a student forum to be established by way ofelection among the students, but the 3rd respondent has stoppedconducting election among the students for the past 15 years,whereas other Arts and Science Colleges run by the Government areconducting elections. The failure to conduct election among thestudents results in the violation of the fundamental rightsguaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution ofIndia. In spite of many representations to the 3rd respondent inthese years, the 3rd respondent has not conducted the election. 2. The Supreme Court while dealing with a case from the KeralaHigh Court wherein the High Court has allowed the educationalinstitutions to prohibit political activities within the collegecampus and to forbear the students from organising and attendingmeetings other than official ones, has directed the Ministry of HumanResources Development to set up a Committee to examine the saidaspect. As per the direction of the Supreme Court, the Ministry ofHuman Resources Development has appointed a Six Member Committeeheaded by the former Election Commissioner Mr.J.M.Lyngdoh inDecember, 2005. The Committee, after an elaborate enquiry, hassubmitted its report in May, 2006 to the Ministry of Human ResourcesDevelopment and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has passedorders to implement the Committee's recommendations in respect ofstudents' union election. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that based on the verdict ofthe Supreme Court, the University Grants Commission directed theUniversities and collegiate authorities to conduct free and fairelections. Based on the said recommendations, the petitioner hassubmitted representations to the first respondent, viz., theGovernment of Tamil Nadu, Law Department and the 3rd respondent, viz.,the Vice Chancellor of Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, sincethere was no response, he has made a further representation on10.9.2007 to all the respondents. The second respondent, theDirector of Legal Studies, in his letter dated 14.9.2007, hasinformed the petitioner that the representation has been forwarded tothe first respondent Government and the first respondent has to passorders. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed thepresent writ petition for direction against the first respondent todispose of the representations of the petitioner dated 9.8.2007 and10.9.2007 in the light of the Lyngdoh Committee's report. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well asthe learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Mr.Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitionerhas submitted that the Committee constituted by the Ministry of HumanResources Development headed by Mr.J.M.Lyngdoh submitted its reportand recommendations based on which the Supreme Court has also givenits verdict in December, 2006. In respect of formation of students'Union and fair election to it, the Supreme Court has directed theUniversity Grants Commission to order all the Universities toconduct fair election and in the light of the said direction, the 1stand 3rd respondents have a duty to conduct election to the students'union of the 3rd respondent University. He would also refer to theletter of the Director of Legal Studies, viz., the second respondentherein dated 14.9.2007 in which the second respondent has informedthe petitioner that the matter has been referred to the Government,viz., the first respondent. In view of the same, his submission isthat the first and third respondents have to consider therepresentations in the light of the recommendations of the LyngdohCommittee and order election to the students' Union in the 4threspondent College. 6. It is not in dispute that the matter is pending with theGovernment. Learned counsel for the University would submit thatinasmuch as the legal issue raised in the writ petition has beendecided by the Supreme Court, any order of this Court will have tobe followed. In the light of the above submissions made by therespective counsel and based on the records, before giving suitabledirections, it is incumbent to note some of the recommendations ofthe Lyngdoh Committee. 7. The Committee, while referring the report of University GrantsCommission, 1981, has stated that the political activities inUniversities is natural because it is a community of thinkingpeople, however, noticed that the political activities in theacademic campus have become degenerated in nature. Even though theLyngdoh Committee was critical of the wide ranging mistreats in thecampuses, it has recognised that some of the institutions in the nameof campus discipline and decorum often used to crush even thegenuine protests of the students against misdeeds and exploitation ofthe management and that was found in many cases where colleges wereowned by political leaders. A reference has been made to the patheticsituation in the State of Maharashtra and taking into considerationall the said aspects, the Committee has arrived at a conclusion thatdemocratically elected body of students in campuses and Universitiesis inevitable and recommended immediate measures to establish suchbody. 8. The Lyngdoh Committee, as its first and foremost submission, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ made it clear that as far as the mode of such election to students'Union is concerned, that right is vested with the University. TheCommittee has said, 'subject to the autonomy of the Universities inrespect of choice of mode of election, all Universities mustconstitute an apex students representative body that represents allstudents, colleges and departments coming under a particularUniversity. In the event of the University being widespread,individual colleges may constitute their own representative bodieswhich would further elect representatives for the apex studentsrepresentative body. Therefore, it is clear that the 3rd respondentUniversity must have students' Union and the same must be by way ofelection, the process of which must be determined by the University.While rejecting the findings of the Kerala High Court thateducational institutions should prohibit political activitieswithin the college campus and organising or attending meetings otherthan official ones within the college campus, the Supreme Court hasfound that the academic excellence is to be the eligibility criterionfor contesting the election.9. The Committee also found that unlike the elections in some ofthe campuses including Delhi University where multi-coloured postersand convoy of vehicles supported by the power of money and muscledominate, there are many campuses in the country where electionsare held in a healthy atmosphere and pave way for democraticdiscourse and debate among the student community. Therefore, thebasis for the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations is to uphold thedemocratic rights of students and to withdraw all the draconian lawsthat banned students Union election and democratic activities.Therefore, the overall study of the recommendations of the LyngdohCommittee shows that (i) the presence of students Union in everyUniversity enables the students' representatives to express theirgrievance to the University and management; (ii) the election to thesaid students' Union should be held in a democratic manner; (iii) therespective Universities shall form a scheme for the purpose ofconducting such elections with necessary criteria taking intoconsideration the academic excellence as an eligibility criterionfor contesting election; and (iv) while setting out the criteria forelection, it is open to the University not only to fix the method ofelection, of course in a democratic manner, but also to lay downvarious functions of such elected students Union. 10. In view of the abovesaid principles which are culled out fromthe recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee which has been approvedby the Supreme Court, the writ petition is disposed of with directionto the respondents 1 to 3 viz., the State Government, the LawDepartment and the Vice Chancellor of Dr.Ambedkar Law University toconsider the representations of the petitioner dated 9.8.2007 and10.9.2007 and pass appropriate orders in giving directions to thestudents election in the 4th respondent College by framing necessary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Scheme in the light of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations asculled out above and such orders shall be passed as expeditiously aspossible, and in any event, within a period of twelve weeks from thedate of receipt of copy of the order. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkhTo1.The Secretary to Government Law Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 0092.The Director of Legal Studies, Directorate of Legal Studies, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Complex, Nandanam, Chennai-35.3.The Vice Chancellor, Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-28.4.The Principal, Dr.Ambedkar Law College,Chennai-104.+1cc to Mr.W.M.Abdul Majeed, Advocate Sr 15+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 177CU (CO)km/4.1.W.P.No.34883 of 2007