Delhi High Court Upholds JNU's Rule Allowing Cross Constituency Voting In Internal Complaints Committee Polls

The Delhi High Court has upheld Jawaharlal Nehru University's decision permitting students to vote across all constituencies- undergraduate, postgraduate and research scholar, in elections for student representatives to the Internal Committee (IC) dealing with sexual-harassment matters.

Justice Mini Pushkarna said that election disputes require clear, cogent and credible evidence of illegality or impropriety to warrant judicial interference.

“Mere dissatisfaction with decisions or perceived grievances, without substantiating actual prejudice, cannot be the basis for interfering with the elections. Courts have consistently emphasized the need to respect electoral processes and outcomes, unless there is clear and demonstrable illegality,” the Court said.

The judge dismissed the plea filed by an undergraduate student, who contested the elections of the IC 2024-2025 from the Undergraduate constituency, as well as another individual who is a research scholar.

They challenged Clause 5 (j) of the General Instructions issued for the Internal Committee Elections 2024-25 dated November 01, 2024.

Vide the said decision, the varsity permitted every student to cast one vote in each of the three constituencies, i.e., undergraduate, post graduate and research scholar, for electing student representatives to the IC under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

They also quashed election results announced on November 05 last year for the polls and to conduct fresh elections.

Dismissing the plea, the Court said that the decision allowing voting by the students across constituencies expanded the participation across categories, enhanced the inclusivity, strengthened democratic character of the process and made number of voters in all the three constituencies equal.

“Thus, cross constituency voting ensured a holistic pan-university approach to representation, especially, considering the fact that the student representatives were to be part of the IC wherever the complaint involved a student, irrespective of the fact whether such complainant student was an undergraduate student, postgraduate student or a research scholar,” the Court said.

It added increasing the voting base wherein the students were allowed to vote for all the three constituencies cannot be considered as amounting to change in the Rules of the game, as contended by the petitioners.

The judge further said that the authorities, by way of the subsequent General Instructions, only increased the voting base wherein students across all the three constituencies were granted opportunity to vote for election of student representatives of all the three constituencies, and not restrict them to cast their vote merely for election of the student representative from their constituency.

“Thus, the said General Instructions increased the total number of voters per constituency, and further made the number of voters in all the three constituencies, equal. This increase in the number of voters cannot be considered to be arbitrary, as the number of eligible voters in all the constituencies became same,” the Court said.

“The petitioners have failed to disclose how the action of the respondent-university in revising the rule by issuing the General Instructions, was unjust or as to how it disturbed the level playing field. This Court notes that the General Instructions were issued four days prior to polling, leaving three clear days out of a total of six, for campaigning. Hence, the alleged difficulty of canvassing across constituencies is unfounded,” it added.

Justice Pushkarna concluded that judiciary should not interfere in elections, unless absolutely necessary. It added that no such necessity had arisen in the matter as the elections were conducted in a transparent, fair and democratic manner.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jivesh Tiwari and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advs

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Abhik Chimni, Ms. Pranjal Abral, Mr. Gurupal Singh, Mr. Rishabh Gupta and Mr. Ayan Dasgupta, Advs. for R-4 to 6; Mr. Vasanth Rajasekaran, SC with Mr. Karan Prakash, Mr. Harsvardhan, Mr. Om Bali and Ms. Deepshikha, Advs. for JNU

Title: PUSHKAR RAJ & ANR v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1435

Click here to read order