Introduction:

The Delhi High Court, in a stern observation during the hearing of Prashant Manchanda v. Union of India & Ors., delivered a strong message to the newly elected student leaders of the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU), emphasizing that while the judiciary cannot interfere in the day-to-day functioning of the university, students are equally bound by the rule of law and cannot act in defiance of it. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a public interest petition filed by Advocate Prashant Manchanda highlighting the rampant defacement of public properties, vandalism, and lawlessness witnessed during the DUSU elections. The petitioner, appearing in person, sought the Court’s intervention to curb the unlawful acts and ensure accountability of the candidates contesting in student elections. The matter has become an important reflection on the intersection between campus democracy and the boundaries of lawful conduct in educational institutions. The High Court’s observations have not only spotlighted the role of student politics in shaping future leadership but also underscored that the democratic process cannot be a pretext for indiscipline, disorder, or violation of public norms.

Arguments:

In his petition, Advocate Prashant Manchanda drew the Court’s attention to the large-scale defacement of public property, including walls, signboards, and government infrastructure, caused by posters and banners of student candidates during the DUSU elections. He argued that such acts violate multiple provisions of law, including the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007, and the directions issued by the Election Commission and the University administration to maintain discipline during the polls. Manchanda submitted that despite repeated judicial orders in previous years, candidates continued to indulge in similar misconduct, including the use of luxury vehicles, loud music, and convoys during campaigning. He further informed the Court that the newly elected DUSU office bearers had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of submitting audit and expenditure reports within a week of the election results, as required by the University’s election guidelines. The petitioner contended that this continued defiance not only undermined the sanctity of the student electoral process but also set a poor precedent for campus governance. He sought the Court’s intervention to ensure strict action against those violating election norms, including disqualification or disciplinary proceedings, arguing that unchecked misconduct erodes both public property and institutional credibility.

The respondents, representing the Delhi University and other authorities, countered the petitioner’s plea by arguing that while the University condemns any act of vandalism or defacement, the petitioner was attempting to expand the scope of the litigation beyond its permissible limits. They submitted that the University administration is competent to deal with such infractions under its disciplinary framework and that the Court should refrain from micromanaging the affairs of the University. Counsel for the University stated that the Court’s jurisdiction in such matters should be confined to ensuring that the election process is conducted fairly, without extending to the monitoring of internal governance or daily compliance matters. The respondents assured the Court that the University would take appropriate action against students who failed to submit expenditure and audit details, as per the rules. They also argued that the petition could not be converted into a supervisory proceeding over the University’s administrative decisions, as such interference would be inconsistent with the principle of institutional autonomy.

Judgement:

During the hearing, the Division Bench adopted a balanced approach—sternly reprimanding the elected student leaders while maintaining judicial restraint over administrative functions. Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya made it clear that the Court’s role is limited to ensuring that elections are conducted lawfully and peacefully, not to monitoring the internal operations of Delhi University. “We are not sitting here to monitor the functioning of the University. Do not enlarge the scope of the petition. We are only concerned with how the elections are conducted. If they are not filing returns, the University will take action,” the Chief Justice observed. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela concurred, emphasizing that the Court cannot act as an overseeing body for every infraction within the University’s administrative framework. However, the Bench’s tone turned severe when it addressed one of the newly elected candidates, Kunal Choudhary, who was present in Court and had been elected as Secretary in the DUSU elections.

The Bench confronted Choudhary directly, stating, “You are taking law into your own hands. Don’t say no. We have read the newspapers. We are not oblivious to what happened. You will take law into your own hands? You are vulnerable right now. We can countermand your elections for violating the order of this year and previous year. We don’t require proof. We have enough.” The Chief Justice went on to remind Choudhary that student leaders are expected to be exemplars of responsible conduct, not violators of the law they seek to represent. The Bench recalled that an undertaking had been given by candidates in the previous year to maintain discipline and avoid defacement of property, but those commitments were flagrantly violated. “Last year you gave an undertaking. You violated that flagrantly. You got elected and then… what about your conduct after elections?” the Court asked rhetorically, indicating the seriousness of the issue.

The Court further expressed its displeasure that other newly impleaded respondents—those elected to the positions of President, Secretary, and Joint Secretary—had failed to appear despite notice. It directed the petitioner to ensure that unserved respondents were duly served before the next hearing date. The Court made it clear that if student leaders continued to disregard lawful directions, it would not hesitate to invoke its powers to countermand their elections or direct strict action through the University authorities. The Bench also referred to earlier proceedings in the same case, where it had previously criticised the use of “big cars” and even JCBs during campaigning—a symbolic representation of the extravagance and lawlessness that has crept into student politics. The Court noted with dismay that despite its earlier warnings, there appeared to be little change in student behaviour or adherence to election guidelines.

Advocate Manchanda’s fresh application reiterated that such violations go against the Lyngdoh Committee guidelines, which were framed under the Supreme Court’s supervision to ensure discipline, transparency, and fairness in student elections. He argued that the guidelines explicitly prohibit the use of printed posters, lavish campaigning, and large-scale expenditures, mandating a modest and issue-based electoral process. Yet, candidates continued to flout these rules with impunity. He contended that the Court’s continuous oversight is necessary to enforce accountability, as both the University and law enforcement agencies have failed to ensure compliance. The Bench, however, drew a fine distinction between judicial intervention and administrative governance, asserting that while courts can ensure rule of law, they cannot substitute the University’s disciplinary mechanisms.

In its concluding remarks, the Bench reiterated its earlier position: “We are not sitting here to monitor the day-to-day functioning of the University. If nobody wants to mend their ways, what can you do?” Chief Justice Upadhyaya expressed frustration at the apparent apathy of student leaders and the recurring pattern of lawlessness despite repeated court interventions. Nonetheless, he stopped short of taking coercive action, preferring to give the University an opportunity to act within its own disciplinary framework. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on January 27, with the Court expecting compliance reports and responses from the impleaded respondents.

This hearing marks yet another chapter in the judiciary’s ongoing engagement with campus politics, a domain where the ideals of democracy often collide with youthful exuberance and disregard for norms. The Delhi High Court’s message is unmistakable: student politics is an important democratic exercise, but it must be conducted within the bounds of law and decency. Elections cannot be an excuse for vandalism, defacement, or unruly conduct. The Court’s words also serve as a reminder that leadership, even at the student level, comes with accountability and respect for the legal order. By choosing to maintain judicial restraint while issuing a stern warning, the High Court has reaffirmed both the autonomy of educational institutions and the supremacy of the rule of law within them.