DUSU polls must be free of political-party interference; student-wing affiliation alone does not violate Lyngdoh rules, Delhi HC says

The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging (i) the Notification dated 13 August 2026 issued by the University of Delhi (“UoD”) prescribing the schedule for the Delhi University Students’ Union (“DUSU”) elections, and (ii) the Notice dated 11 September 2026 issued by the Chief Election Officer (“CEO”) publishing the list of candidates found eligible to contest the DUSU elections for 2026–27.

The petitioner argued that documents referred to in Note (d) of the election Notification, including the DUSU Constitution, Code of Conduct, the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, and relevant judicial orders, should have been annexed to the Notification rather than merely made available on the UoD website.

The petitioner further contended that several candidates were affiliated with student organisations connected with political parties, allegedly violating the requirement that student elections be disassociated from political parties under the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations.

The UoD maintained that it did not recognise or entertain political parties or student organisations and that the official list of candidates did not disclose any such affiliation.

1. Whether the UoD’s election Notification dated 13 August 2026 was invalid merely because the documents referred to in Note (d) were not annexed to it, but were available on the UoD website.

2. Whether the declaration or endorsement of DUSU candidates by student organisations allegedly affiliated with political parties violated Clauses 6.3 and 6.3.1 of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations and invalidated the Notice dated 11 September 2026 listing eligible candidates.

3. Whether persons associated with or members of political parties could participate in, or interfere with, the DUSU election process.

The Court applied the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, particularly Clauses 6.3 and 6.3.1, as accepted and made binding through University of Kerala v. Council, Principals of Colleges, Kerala & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 353, requiring student elections and representation to remain disassociated from political parties and prohibiting persons who are not bona fide students from participating in the election process in any capacity.

It also referred to the Government of India Circular dated 28 November 2006 circulating those recommendations.

For identifying a “political party”, the Court relied on Section 2(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Section 29A, under which a political party is an association or body of Indian citizens registered with the Election Commission.

The Court further considered the DUSU Constitution, the Code of Conduct, the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007, and relevant orders of the Delhi High Court and National Green Tribunal referred to in the election Notification.

The Court held that the failure to annex the documents mentioned in Note (d) did not invalidate the Notification because the documents were publicly accessible and available on the UoD website; students and other interested persons could access them independently.

On the political-affiliation issue, the Court read Clauses 6.3 and 6.3.1 together and held that the election process must be completely disassociated from political parties, while the express prohibition in Clause 6.3.1 also extended to participation by non-students in any capacity.

However, the Court distinguished student organisations from political parties and held that a student’s membership in, or association with, a student wing of a political party would not by itself establish participation by the political party in the election process.

Nevertheless, the Court found that a poster displayed by a candidate expressly identifying him with a political party and carrying that party’s official election symbol constituted prohibited political-party involvement requiring intervention by the UoD authorities and CEO.

It also declined to quash the Notice dated 11 September 2026 listing the eligible candidates, and therefore the petitioner’s substantive challenge failed.

However, the Court directed and expected the CEO, UoD, and other responsible authorities to ensure that the ongoing DUSU elections remained free from any participation or interference—whether direct or remote—by persons associated with or belonging to political parties, and that the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, the Code of Conduct, applicable judicial orders, and the Defacement Act were strictly complied with.

The writ petition and pending application were disposed of accordingly.