The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed petitions challenging the reservation of student union posts for women in colleges affiliated with Kumaun University, observing that the State Government could issue directions under Article 15(3) of the Constitution to provide better representation to girl students. The Court further clarified that the University's decision to reserve the posts of Treasurer and Joint Secretary for women was not invalid merely because a formal amendment had not been incorporated into the student union constitution, particularly when the Executive Council had approved the decision.

Hearing the matter, Justice Ravindra Maithani observed that the right to contest an election is not a fundamental right and that the petitioners had not been prevented from contesting elections to unreserved posts. The Court accordingly dismissed the four writ petitions in limine.

The petitions were filed by students intending to contest the student union elections in colleges affiliated with Kumaun University, Nainital. Three petitioners intended to contest for the post of Treasurer, while the fourth sought to contest for Joint Secretary.

On September 10, 2026, the University's Registrar announced that elections in affiliated colleges would be held on September 29, while the University's election would take place on October 1.

On September 17, the State Government communicated to the Vice Chancellors of Government Universities that, since the strength of girl students in universities exceeded 65%, 50% reservation may be provided to them in student union elections. Pursuant to this communication, the University issued an office order on September 18 reserving various positions for girl students, including the posts of Treasurer and Joint Secretary.

The petitioners challenged the Government Order dated September 17 and the University's subsequent office order, contending that the reservation had been introduced without following the prescribed procedure.

It was argued that the University had provided 100% reservation for the posts of Treasurer and Joint Secretary, while keeping the remaining positions open to all, resulting in approximately 42% reservation for girl students instead of the 50% as contemplated by the State Government's communication.

The petitioners further submitted that the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, approved by the Supreme Court in University of Kerala v. Council, Principals' College, Kerala, required student representation to be regulated by statute, which had not been followed. The petitioners further argued that the University's student union constitution contained a procedure for amendment under Article 19, which ought to have been followed before implementing the reservation.

It was also contended that Section 66A of the Uttarakhand State Universities Act, 1973 did not empower the State Government to issue the impugned direction, as the matter was not a policy issue. The petitioners thus argued that the University could not have adopted the Government Order without the matter being processed through the competent statutory bodies.

Opposing the petitions, the University submitted that girl students constituted more than 65% of its student population and that directions concerning reservation had been issued by the Director of Higher Education since the previous year. It further stated that an emergency meeting of the Executive Council was convened on September 18, where the proposal to implement reservation in student union elections was approved.

The State submitted that the Government Order had been issued under Article 162 of the Constitution, keeping in view its pious obligation under Article 15(3) to take proactive steps for the upliftment of women. It relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P.B. Vijayakumar, which recognised the State's power to make special provisions for women through affirmative action or reservation.

At the outset, the Court observed that“law is well settled that right to contest election is not a fundamental right. In the instant case, the petitioners have not been stopped from contesting election to an unreserved post. They are free to contest election to some other post”.

On the issue of State Government's power, the Court held that it could indeed issue Government Orders under Article 162. It noted that the September 17 order had been issued under Article 15(3) “so as to make better provision for girl students in the University, so as to provide them proper representation.”

The Court also considered the petitioners' objection that the University had provided approximately 42% reservation rather than 50%. It held that “it makes less affect on the validity of this notification.”

As to the procedure adopted by the University, the Court noted that its Executive Council had resolved on September 18 to give effect to the State Government's order. The Court found this fact undisputed as it was recorded in the office order itself.

Addressing the reliance on Article 19 of the Student Union Constitution, the Court held that the provision dealt with amendments proposed by student unions and does not speak of amendment that is incorporated by the Vice Chancellor itself or by the Executive Council.

“In fact, it finds mention under Article 19(D) and according to it, if student union proposes any amendment, it can come through the Head of the Institution to the Vice Chancellor. It does not speak of amendment that is incorporated by the Vice Chancellor itself or by the Executive Council. It is not also disputed that the amendment in the constitution of student union could be proposed by the Executive Council and in the instant matter, the Executive Council has taken a call on 18.09.2026. Merely because formal amendment has not been incorporated in the constitution of student union, it does not invalidate the office order dated 18.09.2026,” the Court held.

Thus, finding no merit in the petitions, the High Court dismissed all four writ petitions in limine.