The Supreme Court in the case Naveen Prakash Nautiyal And Ors . v. Union Of India And Ors observed wherein the petition is filed against the limitation of the number of times a candidate can contest Students Union elections for office bearer and executive posts. Thus, the Supreme Court issued the notice.
The bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan in the case observed and has stated that the PIL filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash of the Rule 6.5.6 of the Lyngdoh Committee Report and a notification dated November 28, 2006 issued by the University Grants Commission, UGC. Thus, the Rule 6.5.6 of the said Report provides that a candidate appearing in students union elections shall have 1 opportunity to contest for the post of office bearer, and 2 opportunities to contest for the post of an executive member.
Therefore, the Supreme appointed the Lyngdoh Committee in 2005 in order to recommend measures for the regulation of student body elections in India. When the Committee, headed by former Chief Election Commissioner JS Lyngdoh, gave a Report, wherein the court directed that the Report be implemented as an interim measure.
Therefore, the court observed that the UGC brought out the impugned notification, asking all universities or colleges to comply with the Court’s order, thereby giving effect to the Lyngdoh Committee Report.
The petitioner in the plea challenge the Rule 6.5.6 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, claiming it fails to satisfy the twin test.
It is averred before the court that there is no justifiable reason for candidates in students union elections to be treated differently from those participating in other elections (such as Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State legislative assemblies, etc.).
Therefore, the petitioner while calling the rule unfair pointed out that the disqualification imposed under it restricts participation of an otherwise eligible candidate to one occasion, regardless whether he lost or won.
However, the court assailed the impunged Rule under Article 19(1) ( C ) of the Constitution of India, right to form associations or unions which being on the ground that no reasonable restrictions exist to justify barring of a candidate from re-contesting students union elections for executive and office bearer posts.
The petitioner in the plea alleged that the Report, even though laudable on most aspects, gives no justification for rolling out the impugned Rule. They in the case also urge that the impugned Rule has the effect of restricting democracy at the most basic level – Universities.
The question being that whether fundamental rights are violated by direction for implementation of Lyngdoh Committee Report was framed by a 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in 2009 for consideration by a Constitution Bench.
The said issue was placed before the 3-Judge Bench of the Court in 2006, when it was seemingly left to be examined in an appropriate case in future and the matter closed.
In the present case, the petitioner, who being the social activist and students/student leaders of colleges across India approached the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality and legality of Rule 6.5.6 as well as the UGC notification in regard thereto.
The counsel, Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for petitioners and contended that with respect to the impugned Rule, there was no discussion or debate amongst stakeholders.
The counsel passed the that the said Rule was unreasonable and arbitrary, yet it was being implemented by the UGC.
The bench while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has stated that the justification for the Rule appeared to be the prevention of proximity with certain political parties. Thus, it even pondered if the matter should be listed before a 3-Judge Bench, before issuing of the notice to the respondent-authorities.