Student Union Elections Not an Absolute Fundamental Right; Academic Primacy Prevails Over Electoral Democracy: Rajasthan High Court

“Student democracy and academic autonomy are not adversaries; when guided by discipline, transparency, and reason, both coexist to strengthen the very foundation of education.”— In a seminal ruling the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, comprising Justice Sameer Jain, has dismissed a batch of writ petitions seeking a mandamus for the immediate conduct of Student Union elections for the academic session 2025-26, while simultaneously issuing sweeping prospective directions to insulate academic campuses from political interference and general election disruptions.

The Controversy: Lyngdoh Committee vs. Academic Reality

The Court was seized of a batch of petitions led by Jai Rao v. State of Rajasthan, where the petitioners sought the enforcement of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations (approved by the Supreme Court in University of Kerala v. Council, Principals’ Colleges, Kerala). The petitioners contended that the non-conduct of elections violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. They argued that the State’s failure to issue an election notification for the 2025-26 session was arbitrary and contrary to the binding precedents of the Larger Bench of the High Court.

The State, represented by the Advocate General, countered that the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the introduction of the semester system, and the backlog of examinations necessitated a prioritization of academic schedules over electoral processes.

“The right to vote or to participate in an election is no more than a statutory right and is entirely distinct from any alleged right to demand that elections must necessarily be conducted at a particular point of time.”

Locus Standi and Prematurity: The Procedural Hurdle

Justice Jain dismissed the petitions primarily on the grounds of maintainability. The Court observed that a "handful of five students" could not claim to represent the interests of lakhs of students across the State without proper authorization. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners had failed to exhaust alternative remedies, such as approaching the Dean, Student Welfare (DSW) or the University Election Board, prior to invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.

The Bench held that the petitions were premature as no adverse decision had been taken by the University authorities that could be subjected to judicial review. The Court emphasized that judicial review is concerned with "decision-making, not decision-anticipation.

“Courts do not issue writs in vacuum or on hypothetical apprehensions... The principle of vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt cannot be invoked by persons who have not even availed the internal remedies.”

Constitutional Analysis: Statutory Right vs. Fundamental Right

In a significant jurisprudential clarification, the Court rejected the contention that the right to participate in Student Union elections is a fundamental right. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in University of Delhi v. Anand Vardhan Chandal and N.P. Ponnuswami, the High Court held that the right to vote or contest is a statutory right subject to statutory limitations.

The Court observed that while student participation is beneficial for democratic values, it remains ancillary to the core academic mandate. The Bench ruled that Article 19(1)(c) (Right to form associations) does not translate into an enforceable fundamental right to demand the conduct of elections at a specific time, especially when it conflicts with academic exigencies.

“Unwarranted political intervention or influence shall be strictly discouraged, as the same defeats the very purpose of student democracy and may lead to corruption or factionalism.”

Prospective Directions: The "Sentinel on the Qui Vive"

Despite dismissing the petitions for the current academic year due to the advanced stage of the session, the Court exercised its constitutional role to issue extensive prospective guidelines to ensure future accountability:

1. Consultative Mechanism: The University authorities are directed to convene a special meeting on January 19, 2026, to hear the grievances of student representatives and affiliated colleges. A final decision on the election framework must be taken within 15 days thereafter.

2. Election Calendar: Future election calendars must ordinarily be issued in March of each academic year to ensure predictability.

3. Political Insulation: The Court explicitly cautioned against "organized external political interference" (specifically naming ABVP, NSUI, SFI, etc.), stating that student elections must remain student-centric.

4. Financial Accountability: Universities must maintain proper accounts of election-related fees collected from students.

“The infrastructure of such institutions is not fungible in nature, and once academic continuity is disrupted, the loss caused to students... cannot be adequately restituted.”

Directive to Election Commission of India: Hands Off Campuses

In a move that will resonate across the academic community, Justice Jain issued strong directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and civil authorities regarding the use of university infrastructure for General/Assembly elections.

Recognizing that the routine requisitioning of colleges disrupts the semester system mandated by NEP 2020, the Court directed that educational institutions should not be used as polling stations or counting centers if such use impedes teaching or research. The ECI has been advised to explore alternative venues like community halls to insulate higher education from "avoidable academic disruption."

Date of Decision: 19/12/2025