ABHIMANYU SINGH Vs. DELHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had filed nomination to contest election for the post of president of the Delhi University Student Union. The said nomination has been rejected in view of clause 6. 5. 6 of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, which have been made applicable in terms of interim directions passed by the supreme Court in University of Kerala versus Council, Principals, Colleges kerala and others, (2006) 8 SCC 304. After the said judgment, the Lyngdoh committee recommendations have been accepted by University of Delhi. Accordingly, code of conduct for candidates contesting DUSU elections in the year 2009-10 has been issued and enforced. The relevant portion of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations and the Supreme Court judgment under which the petitioner has been barred and his nomination has been rejected, read as under:-

(2.) IT is an accepted case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed nomination and contested for the post of Vice-President of Delhi University student Union in the year 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that Clause 6. 5. 6 is not applicable as the elections for the year 2006 were before the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 22 nd September, 2006 in the case of University of Kerala (supra ). He states that the code of conduct has not been given retrospective operation and the Supreme Court in the said judgment has held as under:-

(3.) THE aforesaid contention does not have merit. The recommendations or the order passed by the Supreme Court is not being given retrospective effect and is not being applied to elections held before the date of the judgment, i. e. , 22nd September, 2006. Elections in which the petitioner's nomination has been rejected are being conducted in the year 2009. In terms of Clause 6. 5. 6, the petitioner's nomination has been rejected because he had earlier participated and contested the elections for the post of Vice-President in the year 2006. This does not mean that the respondents are giving retrospective effect to the said recommendations/order. The respondents are implementing the Supreme Court directions as of today. The contentions fail to notice difference between retroactive and retrospective operation.