VISHAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners herein are admittedly charge-sheeted in a criminal case as admitted by them in the writ petition itself in Case Crime No. 164 of 2012 under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC readwith the VIIth Criminal Law Amendment Act. THEy have a desire to contest the students' Union Election of Kanhaiya Lal Basant Lal, Post Graduate College, Mirzapur which is affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi having the status of an University. THE petitioners have challenged Clause 5(9) of the proposed election rules which disqualifies a candidate on the ground of having a criminal background and being involved in a criminal case.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and if this is permitted then false implications will be resorted to with an intention to deliberately eliminate eligible candidates. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned clause referred to hereinabove deserves to be struck down for this reason.

(3.) NONETHELESS the direction of the Supreme Court is binding and every authority is bound to implement it as it is law so long as no other law intervenes. The University has deliberated upon it and has implemented the same which is neither arbitrary nor does it impinge upon any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The petitioners are admittedly charge-sheeted and are facing trial and in the aforesaid circumstances they suffer from an ineligibility which as incorporated is neither irrational nor is it illogical. To the contrary, it is in the interest of the institution and its reputation. A student having indulged in a criminal activity cannot be permitted to raise a plea that such a provision is likely to be misused by falsely implicating somebody. This proposition is a general proposition and cannot be accepted for declaring the rule to be ultra-vires, inasmuch as, merely because a provision is likely to be misused cannot be a ground to strike it down. Apart from this, if a person is falsely implicated in a criminal case, he has legal remedies available under the Criminal Procedure Code as well as under the Constitution of India itself. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners have been unable to point out any illogical reasoning that may lead to a conclusion about the irrationality of the impugned provision. In the absence of any such material or any legal proposition to support the argument, this court is unable to subscribe to the view expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no illegality or unconstitutionality which can be attributed to the impugned ordinance.