The Supreme Court today said it would not allow a university campus to become a “political battlefield” with free flow of money and muscle power in student union elections.
“We will see that educational institutions should not become a political battlefield. Our aim is to see that there should not be free flow of money and muscle power," a bench comprising justices Arijit Pasayat and M.K. Sharma said.
The bench expressed its displeasure that elections in universities have become like parliamentary polls. “Things have changed over the years. See the amount of money going into these elections. Ten years ago, even in Parliamentary elections such money was not used,” it said.
The bench was hearing matters relating to the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union elections, which were stayed by it on October 24 after allegations that the varsity was not implementing the recommendations of Lyngdoh Committee.
It was also hearing the issue relating to vandalism in a college in Puri district of Orissa in the run-up to the students’ body polls. The bench took up the matter by expressing its disapproval at the students of JNU who filed an application under the nomenclature of ‘joint struggle committee’ for lifting the stay on the election.
The use of word “struggle” in naming the committee to fight the stay order of the apex court triggered the wrath of the bench.
"What is the nomenclature of the committee? This is certainly not the acceptable language. You cannot say struggle against the Supreme Court," the bench said.
Realising the mood of the bench, advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for JNU students, said, “I will ask students to change the nomenclature of the committee.” The bench gave some relief to the vice-chancellor and registrar of JNU by dispensing with their personal appearance before it on the contempt notices issued to them for allegedly not complying with the apex court directives on the students’ union election.
Turning to the incident of S Chandrasekhar College in Puri, the bench perused the report of Utkal University VC and expressed shock that 14 students ransacked the college premises.”Only 14 persons damaged the building of the institution. Can we allow this to happen?" the bench said and was surprised to know that only showcause notices have been issued to them, despite a report by the VC saying that “the building can't be brought to original shapThe SP should take all the accused into custody,he bench said, directing the SP to file a report about the steps taken by the police.
The bench said it will hear in the first week of April next year all matters relating to students’ union elections, including the application filed by 'Youth for Equality' seeking strict enforcement of Lyngdoh Committee recommendation in JNU elections. The recommendations have been opposed by all the other student outfits on the campus.
The students’ committee has contended that the Lyngdoh panel itself had applauded the JNU model of students’union election evolved in 35 years.
Further, the ills pointed out by the Lyngdoh panel did not exist in the JNU elections, the application by the committee claimed.
However, the application filed by ‘Youth for Equality’ through advocate M. L. Lahoty, contended that the Lyngdoh panel recommendations should be uniformly applicable to all universities. While deferring the hearing, the bench said suggestions on the issue could be made before additional solicitor general Gopal Subramanium, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae in the matter.
Source:- The Tribune 9 December 2008
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2008/20081209/nation.htm#1
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in
“We will see that educational institutions should not become a political battlefield. Our aim is to see that there should not be free flow of money and muscle power," a bench comprising justices Arijit Pasayat and M.K. Sharma said.
The bench expressed its displeasure that elections in universities have become like parliamentary polls. “Things have changed over the years. See the amount of money going into these elections. Ten years ago, even in Parliamentary elections such money was not used,” it said.
The bench was hearing matters relating to the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union elections, which were stayed by it on October 24 after allegations that the varsity was not implementing the recommendations of Lyngdoh Committee.
It was also hearing the issue relating to vandalism in a college in Puri district of Orissa in the run-up to the students’ body polls. The bench took up the matter by expressing its disapproval at the students of JNU who filed an application under the nomenclature of ‘joint struggle committee’ for lifting the stay on the election.
The use of word “struggle” in naming the committee to fight the stay order of the apex court triggered the wrath of the bench.
"What is the nomenclature of the committee? This is certainly not the acceptable language. You cannot say struggle against the Supreme Court," the bench said.
Realising the mood of the bench, advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for JNU students, said, “I will ask students to change the nomenclature of the committee.” The bench gave some relief to the vice-chancellor and registrar of JNU by dispensing with their personal appearance before it on the contempt notices issued to them for allegedly not complying with the apex court directives on the students’ union election.
Turning to the incident of S Chandrasekhar College in Puri, the bench perused the report of Utkal University VC and expressed shock that 14 students ransacked the college premises.”Only 14 persons damaged the building of the institution. Can we allow this to happen?" the bench said and was surprised to know that only showcause notices have been issued to them, despite a report by the VC saying that “the building can't be brought to original shapThe SP should take all the accused into custody,he bench said, directing the SP to file a report about the steps taken by the police.
The bench said it will hear in the first week of April next year all matters relating to students’ union elections, including the application filed by 'Youth for Equality' seeking strict enforcement of Lyngdoh Committee recommendation in JNU elections. The recommendations have been opposed by all the other student outfits on the campus.
The students’ committee has contended that the Lyngdoh panel itself had applauded the JNU model of students’union election evolved in 35 years.
Further, the ills pointed out by the Lyngdoh panel did not exist in the JNU elections, the application by the committee claimed.
However, the application filed by ‘Youth for Equality’ through advocate M. L. Lahoty, contended that the Lyngdoh panel recommendations should be uniformly applicable to all universities. While deferring the hearing, the bench said suggestions on the issue could be made before additional solicitor general Gopal Subramanium, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae in the matter.
Source:- The Tribune 9 December 2008
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2008/20081209/nation.htm#1
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in
No comments:
Post a Comment