The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed petitions by five students challenging rejection of their nominations for various posts in the Delhi University Students’ Union elections.
Dismissing their petitions, Justice Sanjiv Khanna of the Court said the chief election officer had established that the petitioners had violated the code of conduct and the Supreme Court directions.
The petitioners, National Students’ Union of India candidates for the posts of president and vice-president, Deepak Negi and Umesh Tanwar respectively, and the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad’s candidates for the posts of president, secretary and joint secretary Rohit Chahal, Lalit Kumar and Ashok Khari respectively had challenged rejection of their nominations on three grounds.
They submitted that they did not know the reasons of their disqualification as they were not informed about it by the chief election officer. The other two grounds they cited before the Court were that the memorandum of cancellation of their candidature was not warranted and not authorised by law and that the question of disqualification or violation of the directions of the Supreme Court or the code of conduct could only be examined by the grievance cell in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court.
However, Justice Sanjiv Khanna of the Court dismissed all the three grounds.
Dealing with the charge of the petitioners that they were not informed about the reasons of their disqualification, Justice Khanna said: “I do not think that the principles of natural justice have been violated.’’
“The respondents before taking any actions had issued show-cause notices stating that large-scale violation of the Supreme Court directions as well as the code of conduct had been noticed,’’ the Court said.
The Court also justified issuance of the memorandum of cancellation of candidature of the petitioners.
As regards the third ground, Justice Khanna said the reference of the complaints against the petitioners to the grievance cell was not required because the chief election officer had acted in terms of the constitution of the DUSU and in conformity with clause 19 of the code of conduct.
