Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Akash Yadav S/O Lekhraj Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:51367]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11354/2025
Jai Rao S/o Shri Harish Chand Rav, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Shankar Takij Ke Pass, Ward No. 21, Nohar, Hanumangarh-
335523
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Higher Education, Bhagwan Das Road, C
Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur- 302005
2. University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Vice Chancellor, J.l.n
Marg, Jaipur 302004
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11789/2025
Akash Yadav S/o Lekhraj Yadav, Aged About 20 Years, R/o 334,
Bhura Patel Nagar, Kishan Baba Ki Dhani, Ajmer Road, Jaipur,
Rajasthan - 302021.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Higher Education, Bhagwan Das Road, C-
Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur-302005.
2. University Of Rajasthan, Through Vice Chancellor, J.l.n.
Marg, Jaipur- 302004.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11800/2025
Abhay Choudhary S/o Shri Sita Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
C 68A, Dakshin Bhag Vijay Vihar, Naya Kheda, Amba Bari, Jaipur,
Rajasthan 302039
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Higher Education, Bhagwan Das Road, C
Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur-302005
2. University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Vice Chancellor, J.l.n
Marg, Jaipur 302004
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (2 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13904/2025
Neeraj Khichar S/o Shri Rajender, Aged About 23 Years, Resident
Of Ward No. 1, Luna Wali Dhani, 2 Mst-Sm, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan- 335526.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Higher Education, Bhagwan Das Road, C-
Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur-302005
2. University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Vice Chancellor,
J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur-302004.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14689/2025
Shubham Rewar S/o Shri Gajendra Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o- Sonu Sadan, Ladnun Road, Parmanand Colony, Didwana,
Nagore, Rajasthan-341303.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Higher Education, Bhagwan Das Road , C
Scheme , Ashok Nagar , Jaipur- 302005
2. University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Vice Chancellor, J.l.n
Marg, Jaipur-302004.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Abhinav Sharma (Amicus Curiae)
with Mr. Akshaya Varma & Mr. Rahul
Sharma, Ms. Puja Sharma
Mr. Vishal Choudhary
Mr. Shantanu Pareek
Mr. Navin Kumar Yadav
Mr. Tushar Panwar with
Mr. Rohit Mahrada
Mr. Tushar Goyal
Mr. Mukul Rao
Mr. Deepak Tilwania
Mr. Anil Kr. Kasana
Mr. Anish Bhadala
Mr. Rishabh Bhidasra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AG with
Ms. Dhriti Ladha
Ms. Harshita Thakral
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (3 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma
Mr. Tanay Goyal
Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG with
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Takar
Mr. Anshuman Singh
Mr. Tanishq Aditya Parmar
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Rachit Sharma
Mr. Madhav Dhadhich
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
REPORTABLE
1. Arguments Concluded on: 14.11.2025
2. Judgment Reserved on: 14.11.2025
3. Full Judgment/Operative Part Pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Pronounced on: 19.12.2025
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of
controversy involved, albeit not limited to but is broadly and
predominantly defined by the plea made seeking compliance of
the lyngdoh committee recommendation (committee appointed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of University of Kerala v.
Council, Principal Education, Kerala and ors., in Civil Appeal No.
887/2009) at point number 6.4.2 which purposes for yearly
conduct of the student union elections; within six-eight weeks
from the date of the commencement of the academic session.
Consecutively, considering the fact that the writ petitions warrant
adjudication on common questions of law and fact; with consent
of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, SBCWP
No. 11354/2025 titled as Jai Rao Vs. State Of Rajasthan And
Ors., is being taken up as the lead case. It is cautiously clarified
that any discrepancies in the present petitions, pertain purely to
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (4 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
the factual narratives contained therein, and not vis-à-vis the
questions of law to be determined by this Court; the instant
judgment shall be applicable on all the petitions connected
herein/henceforth on mutatis mutandis basis.
2. Before proceeding to the merits and demerits of the case at
hand, this Court finds it appropriate to extend its sincere gratitude
to the learned amicus curiae for his valuable assistance provided
during the course of these proceedings. The submissions and
insights offered by the learned amicus curiae have been of
significant aid in clarifying complex legal and factual issues
pertinent to the matter. Thence, the Court recognizes and
appreciates the impartial and professional manner in which the
learned amicus curiae has approached the matter, ensuring that
the focus remained squarely on the advancement of justice. The
Court is, therefore, grateful for the thoughtful and impartial
perspectives offered, which have undeniably enhanced the quality
of the proceedings.
ISSUES TO BE ADJUDICATED BY THIS COURT AND
PRIMARY GRIEVANCE OF THE PETITIONERS AS NOTED IN
THE LEAD PETITION:-
3. The present batch of writ petitions has been filed
invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have raised
grievances regarding the respondents' failure to conduct the
annual student elections for the academic session 2025-2026. The
petitioners contend that the non-conduct of the elections is in
violation of the directives set forth in the ratio of University of
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (5 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
Kerala (supra), as well as the binding principles established by
the Larger Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of
Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, Jodhpur &
Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (WRW No. 15/2005). It is
contended that the respondents' actions are inconsistent with the
judgment of the Larger Bench, which mandates the continuation
of student elections in compliance with the recommendations of
the Lyngdoh Committee. The petitioners seek adjudication on the
primary issue: "Whether student elections should be held in
educational institutions in the State of Rajasthan; at what time
such elections should be conducted; by what mode the elections
should be held; and who shall be the competent authority to
regulate such elections?" The petitioners, therefore, seek
appropriate reliefs in the form of directions to the respondents to
ensure the holding of student elections as per the constitutional
mandates, judicial precedents, and the guidelines laid down by the
Lyngdoh Committee.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE:-
4. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the present
matter raises issues of seminal importance touching upon the
democratic fabric of educational institutions, the fundamental
rights of students, and the enforceability of long-standing
judicially approved guidelines governing Student Union elections.
At the outset, it was submitted that the consistent judicial view,
including that of this Court, various other High Courts, and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, unequivocally recognizes that Student
Union elections are not a peripheral activity but form an integral
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (6 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
and inseparable part of college and university education. College
education, as judicially interpreted, necessarily encompasses the
holistic development of students, which includes democratic
participation, leadership training, and the inculcation of
constitutional values.
5. This Court, as far back as the year 1989 in the ratio
encapsulated in Bharat Bhushan Pareek vs. University of
Rajasthan: 1989 Supreme (Rajasthan) 521, has held that
Student Union elections are required to be held every year.
Nonetheless, the said position of law attained finality and has
consistently guided universities within the State. Learned amicus
curiae submitted that the said principle has neither been overruled
nor diluted and continues to hold the field. It was further
submitted that the right to form an association is a fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of
India, and thence, judicial pronouncements have repeatedly held
that Student Unions fall squarely within the ambit of this
fundamental right. Consequently, the right to form a Student
Union necessarily includes the right to elect representatives of
such Union and to participate in its lawful activities.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of University
of Kerala (supra), and the Delhi High Court, have categorically
held that the right to hold Student Union elections is a
fundamental right and an integral part of college education. The
Delhi High Court, in a particularly pertinent observation, held that
if Union elections are not held and Union activities are excluded
from college education, the very purpose of education aimed at
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (7 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
holistic development of students would stand defeated. This
position was further reaffirmed by an order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 08.12.2011 passed in University of Kerala
(supra).
7. The learned amicus curiae further contended that
Student Union elections are a practical and essential means of
imparting democratic values and ensuring that students are
trained in the functioning of democracy. The process of elections
and participatory governance at the university level is foundational
to sustaining the democratic ethos of the country. It was
submitted that Student Unions do not exist at the level of toddler
education, primary education, secondary education, or senior
secondary education. The deliberate and conscious inclusion of
Student Unions at the college and university level underscores the
recognition that students at this stage are mature enough to
engage with democratic processes and that such engagement is
an essential component of higher education. Even historically,
student movements have played a transformative role in shaping
Indian democracy, notably exemplified by the JP Movement.
Nonetheless, the involvement of students in democratic processes
within educational institutions has produced leaders who have
significantly contributed to public life, governance, and the
judiciary.
8. With regard to the Lyngdoh Committee guidelines, it
was submitted that the said guidelines have been held to be
enforceable and binding. The University Grants Commission has
directed all universities across the country to implement the
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (8 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
Lyngdoh Committee recommendations and to hold elections in
accordance therewith. In response to a question raised in
Parliament, the Central Government has categorically stated that
the said guidelines are binding in nature. Albeit, at one stage the
validity of the guidelines was doubted and a reference was made,
a three-Judge Bench declined to answer the reference on the
ground that the guidelines had been widely accepted and
implemented for nearly a decade. The Court, therefore,
consciously left the issue open to be examined at some other
relevant point of time, thereby allowing the continued operation of
the guidelines.
9. It was submitted that the contention that the National
Education Policy (NEP) would be adversely affected by the holding
of Student Union elections is misconceived. NEP does not prohibit
Student Union elections. On the contrary, Student Unions are a
part of college education, and universities across the country
continue to hold elections without any impediment under NEP.
The plea of parity is also raised inasmuch as other States continue
to hold Student Union elections. Therefore, the State of Rajasthan
cannot arbitrarily deviate from this settled and uniform practice
without cogent reasons supported by law.
10. Learned amicus curiae further submitted that the
existence of a semester system and routine examinations cannot
be a valid ground to ignore or curtail the fundamental right to
form associations and to participate in Student Union elections
and activities; and that routine academic processes cannot
override constitutionally guaranteed rights. It was also submitted
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (9 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
that students are represented in statutory bodies such as the
Senate and curtailment of Student Union elections directly impacts
student representation in such bodies, which cannot be legally
sustained. Moreso, in circumstances where the University has
admittedly collected fees from students for the purpose of holding
elections, the University cannot now resile from its obligation and
misuse or divert the money collected from students. It was also
submitted that even if the immediate issue before this Court
pertains to University of Rajasthan alone, the decision taken by
the State not to hold elections has wider ramifications. This Court
is empowered to examine the veracity and legality of the State's
decision. If the decision is found to be arbitrary or unsustainable,
striking it down would have necessary and natural consequences.
11. Learned amicus curiae further submitted that the plea
of inconvenience, disruption of academic activities, or alleged
strain on infrastructure on account of Student Union elections is
wholly untenable and self-contradictory. It was pointed out that
the infrastructure, buildings, and campus facilities of the
University are routinely requisitioned and utilized for conducting
other elections, including Parliamentary, Assembly, and local body
elections, strictly in accordance with directions issued by the
Election Commission of India. Such utilization, though it inevitably
causes temporary disruption of academic schedules (for a period
of approximately two months), has never been treated as a valid
ground to deny or defer constitutionally and statutorily mandated
electoral processes. If the University infrastructure can be made
available for general elections in obedience to constitutional
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (10 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
authorities, there exists no rational or legal basis to deny the
same facilities for Student Union elections, which are an integral
part of higher education and democratic training. Any such
selective invocation of inconvenience would amount to arbitrary
discrimination and would fail the test of reasonableness under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
12. Learned amicus curiae further contended that even a
minuscule number of students is sufficient to maintain such a
cause, as in Bharat Bhushan Pareek (supra), a handful of
students approached this Court seeking the holding of Student
Union elections. This Court not only entertained the petition but
appreciated the effort, observing that it was good that students
had awakened to their rights to elect representatives of their
Union.
13. Concluding the extensive arguments, learned amicus
curiae submitted that in view of the consistent legal position, the
stand of the Central Government in Parliament, the settled view of
this Court, Division Benches, Larger Benches, other High Courts,
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, college education necessarily
implies the overall development of students. Student Union
activities, including elections, are an intrinsic part of the right to
education, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to
form associations; and that this fundamental right cannot be
curtailed in the name of law and order situations or the National
Education Policy, particularly in the absence of any statutory
prohibition.
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (11 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL
REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS:-
14. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners had endorsed the submissions made by the learned
amicus curiae and had additionally submitted that the petitioner is
a bonafide student of the University of Rajasthan, and has a legal
and fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India. It was further contended that in the ratio
spelled out in University of Kerala (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had categorically noted that the right to choose
ones' representative through student union elections partakes the
character of a fundamental right, being an extension of freedom of
expression. To substantiate the said argument reliance was also
placed upon the ratio encapsulated in Union of India vs.
Association of Democratic Reforms: (2002) 5 SCC 294. It
was then contended that whilst recognizing the aforesaid right as
a 'fundamental right', the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also
subjected the same to certain reasonable restrictions, which have
been embodied in the form of the Lyngdoh Committee
Recommendations. The said recommendations were accepted by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 22.09.2006
passed in the University of Kerala (supra), and were directed
to be scrupulously followed by all the Universities and Colleges
across the country.
15. Subsequently, learned counsel submitted that the
acceptance of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court constitutes judicial sanction, and the same
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (12 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
now operate as binding norms governing the conduct of student
union elections. These recommendations were approved by the
Supreme Court of India in 2006, providing comprehensive
guidelines for the conduct of student union elections in all
universities and colleges across the country to ensure a peaceful,
free, and fair process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further
observed that while the right to elect representatives cannot be
stifled, a balance must be struck by imposing reasonable
restrictions consistent with constitutional doctrine. It was
specifically pointed out that Point No. 6.4.2 of the Lyngdoh
Committee recommendations mandates that student union
elections shall be held on a yearly basis and within 6 to 8 weeks
from the date of commencement of the academic session. For the
sake of convenience the same is reproduced herein below:
"It is further recommended that elections be held
on a yearly basis and that the same should be
held between 6 to 8 weeks from the date of
commencement of the academic session."
16. Learned counsel also submitted that the academic
session 2025-26 of the Respondent University has admittedly
commenced, and despite the lapse of the stipulated time period
under the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, the respondents
have failed to issue any circular or notification for the conduct of
student union elections for the session 2025-26. It was contended
that such inaction on the part of the respondents' amounts to a
violation of the constitutional mandate, as the fundamental right
of students to elect their representatives cannot be defeated
merely by inaction, delay, or administrative silence.
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (13 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
17. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has expressly observed that such a valuable right
cannot be curtailed either by a court order or by legislative
enactment, and consequently, the respondents cannot indirectly
curtail the same by simply allowing time to pass without taking
any decision for the conduct of elections. Attention of the Court, at
this juncture, was invited to the fact that the Respondent State
had earlier issued a circular dated 12.08.2023, whereby student
union elections for the session 2023-24 were cancelled.
Thereafter, for the session 2024-25 as well, no circular or
notification was issued, resulting in non-conduct of student union
elections for consecutive academic sessions. Learned counsel
submitted that such repeated non-conduct of elections is arbitrary,
unconstitutional, and violative of the fundamental rights of
students across Universities and Colleges in the State of
Rajasthan.
18. In support of the contentions made insofar, learned
counsel had placed reliance upon the judgment of the Larger
Bench (Three Judges) of this Court in Rajasthan High Court
Advocates Association, Jodhpur & Anr. v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., WRW No. 15/2005, wherein the question of
law regarding whether student union elections should be held in
educational institutions in the State of Rajasthan was answered in
an affirmative manner. The Larger Bench conclusively held that
student union elections must be conducted in accordance with the
Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, and that earlier
contradictory directions issued by different Division Benches stood
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (14 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
overruled in view of the subsequent acceptance and
implementation of the Lyngdoh Committee report. It was further
held that upon acceptance of the Lyngdoh Committee
recommendations by the State Government, the earlier judgments
dated 05.05.2005 and 13.05.2005 ceased to operate, and the
Lyngdoh Committee recommendations became uniformly
applicable to all Colleges and Universities across the State of
Rajasthan.
19. Learned counsel contended that the aforesaid judgment
of the Larger Bench, being a binding precedent, squarely governs
the present controversy, and the ratio decidendi thereof is binding.
Therefore, once the issue regarding the conduct of student union
elections stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
reaffirmed by the Larger Bench of this Court, the respondents are
under a constitutional and legal obligation to conduct yearly
student union elections strictly in accordance with the Lyngdoh
Committee recommendations.
20. Learned counsel submitted that the cause of action has
clearly arisen, as the academic session 2025-26 has already
commenced, and the respondents have failed to issue the
requisite notification or circular within the prescribed timeframe. It
was submitted that the continued denial of student union elections
infringes the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution and warrants interference by this Court in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
21. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel
concluded stating that the respondents are liable to be directed to
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (15 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
issue appropriate notification/circular forthwith for the conduct of
student union elections for the academic session 2025-26, strictly
in conformity with the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations and
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:-
22. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents have made manifold submissions, which are
delineated hereinbelow:
I. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AS TO MAINTAINABILITY OF THE
PRESENT BUNCH OF WRIT PETITIONS
23. At the outset, it was submitted that the present batch
of writ petitions is wholly misconceived and not maintainable in
law, inasmuch as no legal, statutory or fundamental right of the
Petitioners has been infringed so as to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The Petitioners have sought to project the conduct of
elections to the Students' Union as a fundamental right, placing
reliance upon the order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in University of Kerala (supra). It is contended
by the Petitioners as well as the learned amicus curiae that the
said order recognizes a fundamental right to elect representatives
through Students' Union elections. However, the reliance placed by
the petitioners is wholly misplaced. 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. The
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (16 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Association of
Democratic Reforms & Anr., (2002) 5 SCC 294, while holding
that disclosure of antecedents of candidates forms part of the
right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a),
never elevated the right to vote or the conduct of elections to the
status of a fundamental right.
24. It was further submitted that the judgment in
Association of Democratic Reforms (supra) was rendered in
the specific context of ensuring an informed electorate by
mandating disclosure of criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities
of candidates; and that the said judgment did not recognize any
enforceable right to demand the holding of elections, much less
Students' Union elections, as a fundamental right.
25. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in University
of Delhi & Anr. v. Anand Vardhan Chandal, (2000) 10 SCC
648, which was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while passing the order in University of Kerala (supra),
firmly held that participation in Students' Union activities,
including elections, cannot be placed on a higher pedestal than
participation in elections to State Legislatures or Parliament.
Reliance was placed therein on the Constitution Bench judgment in
N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency, AIR 1952 SC 64, holding that the right to vote or
contest elections is only a statutory right and not a fundamental
right. Further, it was contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has consistently held that the right to participate in elections is not
a fundamental right but a statutory right, subject to the provisions
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (17 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
of the concerned statute, by a catena of judgments. Therefore, in
the matter at hand there is no violation of any fundamental or
legal right of the petitioners, and consequently, no writ of
mandamus can be issued directing the Respondents to conduct
Students' Union elections.
A. Absence of Locus Standi
26. It was further submitted that the present writ petitions
suffer from a fundamental defect of lack of locus standi, as only a
handful of five petitioners have approached this Court, claiming to
represent the interests of the student community at large, without
any authorization or representative capacity. Factually speaking
there are approximately 28 State-funded Universities, 53 Private
Universities and 596 Government Colleges in the entire State of
Rajasthan. Even within the University of Rajasthan alone, there
are approximately 26,500 students. The fact that only five
students have approached this Court clearly demonstrates that the
petitioners do not represent the voice of the majority of students.
27. It was also contended that if the petitioners had any
grievance against the Respondent-University, the appropriate
course available to them was to approach the Dean, Student
Welfare (DSW), in terms of Clause 13 of the Constitution of
Rajasthan University Students' Union, 2010 (hereinafter referred
to as "RUSU Constitution"). Therefore, as without exhausting the
said internal remedy, the petitioners have directly invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court, the plea of the petitioners becomes per
se impermissible in law.
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (18 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
28. In the prevailing circumstances, it was submitted that
the petitioners have no locus standi to seek the reliefs prayed for
and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed at the threshold
on this ground only.
B. Pre-mature Nature of the Writ Petitions
29. It was further contended that the present writ petitions
are further liable to be dismissed as being pre-mature. Admittedly,
no grievance was ever lodged by the petitioners before the DSW
or any competent authority of the University; and in the absence
of any representation or demand for justice, no decision has been
taken by the Respondent-University, which could be subjected to
judicial review. It is settled law that a writ petition cannot be
entertained in the absence of any decision or action by the
authority concerned. Since there is no violation of any
fundamental or legal right and no adverse decision exists, the writ
petitions are pre-mature and deserve dismissal at the threshold.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON MERITS OF THE CASE
A. Reasons for Not Conducting Students' Union Elections for the
Academic Year 2025-2026
30. It was further contended that the decision not to
conduct Students' Union elections for the academic year 2025-
2026 is based on bona fide, rational and justifiable considerations,
giving priority to academic interests. The implementation of the
National Education Policy, 2020 has necessitated substantial
academic restructuring. As according to the UGC Regulations, 180
teaching days are mandatory in one academic session. Further,
the semester system has been introduced for the first time under
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (19 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
NEP 2020, mandating 90 teaching days in each semester. It was
further apprised to the Court that prior to the introduction of the
semester system, examinations were conducted annually,
resulting in a backlog of supplementary examinations of batches
from the last three academic years. Therefore, conducting
Students' Union elections during the academic year 2025-2026
would disturb the entire academic calendar and further delay
examinations.
31. Additionally, elections of various local bodies are also
yet to be conducted, which is another relevant consideration.
Thus, the decision not to conduct Students' Union elections for the
academic year 2025-2026 is founded on bona fide academic and
administrative exigencies and does not suffer from arbitrariness or
mala fides.
B. Order dated 08.12.2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Relied
upon by the Petitioners
32. Learned counsel representing the petitioners have
heavily relied upon the order dated 08.12.2011 passed in
University of Kerala (supra) and have sought enforcement of
the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee accepted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was submitted that the
recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee were accepted by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.09.2006 only as an interim
measure, subject to modifications, and to be followed until further
orders. Subsequently, serious questions of law arose regarding the
enforceability of such recommendations, leading to reference to a
Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution of
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (20 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
India by order dated 11.11.2009. Nonetheless, the order dated
08.12.2011, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
was passed in the peculiar factual context of Jawaharlal Nehru
University, which is primarily a research-oriented University, and
modifications were made keeping in view the special conditions
prevailing therein. Ultimately, the main appeal in which interim
directions were passed came to be dismissed for non-prosecution
vide order dated 01.02.2016 passed by a three-Judge Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is settled law that interim orders
merge with the final order and cease to have effect upon dismissal
of the main proceedings.
33. In support of the contentions made insofar reliance was
placed upon the ratio encapsulated in State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. v. Prem Chopra, (2024) 12 SCC 426, wherein it has been
reiterated that an interim order granted during pendency of
proceedings comes to an end with the dismissal of the substantive
proceedings. Consequently, no binding judicial mandate exists
today requiring implementation of the Lyngdoh Committee
recommendations, and the same do not constitute a precedent
under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
C. Reliance on Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of
India
34. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners on Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution is
misconceived, as seeking a direction for conduct of Students'
Union elections does not fall within the ambit of freedom of speech
and expression or the right to form associations.
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (21 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
35. The Students' Union is formed by the University and
every student becomes its automatic member upon admission.
The Union continues to exist even if its executive body is not
elected for a particular academic year. Therefore, no right under
Articles 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(c) is infringed. In any event, the
Respondent-State is well within its permissible limits to impose
reasonable restrictions under Articles 19 Of the Constitution of
India, particularly where public order and academic discipline are
concerned.
36. It was also contended that the University of Rajasthan
is governed by the Rajasthan University Act, 1946 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act of 1946"), which contains no provision
regarding the formation or elections of the Students' Union. The
statutes, ordinances, regulations and rules framed under Sections
27, 29, 31 and 31(A) of the Act also do not confer any statutory
right relating to Students' Union elections. The RUSU Constitution
is merely in the nature of administrative guidelines and does not
have legislative force, as it has been framed outside the scope of
the Act of 1946. Therefore, non-compliance with such non-
statutory guidelines does not infringe any statutory or legal right
of the students. Ultimately, learned counsel had placed reliance
upon the ratio encapsulated, inter alia, in J.R. Raghupathy v.
State of A.P.: (1988) 4 SCC 364, Syndicate Bank v.
Ramachandaran Pillai: (2011) 15 SCC 398, Sharif-Ud-Din v.
Abdul Gani Lone: (1980) 1 SCC 403.
37. Qua the submissions tendered by the learned amicus
curiae it was contended that the judgments cited thereby, are in
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (22 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
relation to conducting the elections of Students Union were passed
before 01.02.2016 or was not brought to the notice of the Court
while adjudication the same issue. The respondent authorities
might have agreed at that time as the interim order was in force,
but since, vide the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, nothing remained in existence to be binding upon
the respondent authorities. Therefore, at present, the position has
changed, and those orders are clearly not applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the present issue.
38. In rebuttal to the plea of academic disruption,
administrative inconvenience, and alleged strain on infrastructure
advanced, to justify the non-conduct of Students' Union elections
for the academic year 2025-2026, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents submitted that such contentions are internally
inconsistent, factually untenable, and legally unsustainable. It was
submitted that the University infrastructure, including classrooms,
examination halls, hostels, and other campus facilities, is routinely
requisitioned and utilized for the conduct of Parliamentary,
Assembly, and local body elections strictly in compliance with
binding directions issued by the Election Commission of India. It
was further submitted that when the University, as a matter of
constitutional obligation, makes its infrastructure available for
general elections which are external to the academic process, it
cannot selectively plead inconvenience or academic disturbance to
deny Students' Union elections, which are intrinsically connected
with higher education, student representation, and democratic
training.
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (23 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
39. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, it was
prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the present
batch of writ petitions at the threshold, being devoid of merit,
along with any other order deemed fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
40. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to
the pleadings on record, the rival submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties, the learned amicus curiae, and the
judgments cited at the Bar.
41. At the outset, this Court is of a considered view that
albeit student elections serve as a vital instrument for nurturing
democratic values, leadership and civic responsibilities, along the
young minds; however, such participatory processes must operate
within well-defined parameters, ensuring that the pursuit of
representative governance does not overshadow or undermine the
paramount objective of educational institutions, namely, the
uninterrupted advancement of academic discipline, excellence and
institutional harmony.
42. The controversy before this Court has necessitated a
careful and delicate balancing between two competing yet equally
significant considerations: on one hand, the legitimate aspiration
of students to participate in representative democratic processes
within educational institutions; and on the other, the autonomy of
universities to regulate their academic, administrative and
institutional affairs in furtherance of academic excellence,
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (24 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
discipline and orderly functioning. This Court is conscious of the
constitutional ethos that democracy is not confined to legislatures
alone but is a value that permeates all public institutions. Equally,
it must be borne in mind that universities are temples of learning,
and the primary object of their existence is the imparting of
education. Student participation, though desirable and beneficial
for holistic development, remains ancillary to the core academic
mandate. The law, therefore, requires a harmonious construction,
not an adversarial one.
43. However, this Court finds merit in the preliminary
objection regarding locus standi, as leveled by the learned counsel
for the respondents. A handful of students, without any
representative character or authorization, cannot claim to espouse
the cause of lakhs of students across the State. While public
interest litigation has liberalized standing, the present petitions
are not framed as bona fide public interest litigations but as
individual writ petitions seeking enforcement of alleged personal
rights. The principle of vigilantibus non dormientibus jura
subveniunt cannot be invoked by persons who have not even
availed the internal remedies available to them under the
University framework. The petitioners have admittedly not
approached the Dean, Student Welfare or any competent authority
before invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In the absence
of any demand, representation or adverse decision, the petitions
are clearly pre-mature. It is also opined that the Courts do not
issue writs in vacuum or on hypothetical apprehensions; and that
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (25 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
judicial review is concerned with decision-making, not decision-
anticipation.
44. Being conscious about the foregoing facts and
circumstances, this Court is disposing of the present petitions, r
the reasons noted hereinbelow:
44.1 That only a minuscule number of students have
approached this Court, claiming reliefs which are asserted to be
representative in nature, without demonstrating any authorization,
mandate, or representative capacity to espouse the cause of the
student community at large.
44.2 That the petitioners have admittedly not availed or
exhausted the efficacious alternative remedy available to them
under the applicable framework, including approaching the
competent University authorities such as the Dean, Student
Welfare or other statutory/administrative bodies, prior to invoking
the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
44.3 That no representation, demand for redressal, or
grievance was placed before the respondent authorities, and
consequently, no decision or action has been taken by the said
authorities which could be subjected to judicial review by this
Court. Nonetheless, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is discretionary and equitable in nature, and ordinarily
ought not to be exercised in the absence of exhaustion of
alternative remedies, particularly where disputed questions
touching upon policy, administration, and academic governance
arise.
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (26 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
44.4 That the present writ petitions, having been filed at a
pre-decisional stage and in the absence of any demonstrable
infringement of an enforceable legal or fundamental right, are
premature and not amenable to adjudication at this stage.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:
"Student democracy and academic autonomy are not
adversaries; when guided by discipline, transparency, and
reason, both coexist to strengthen the very foundation of
education."
45. Although this Court has not entertained the present
batch of writ petitions for the reasons recorded hereinabove, it is
well settled that even while declining relief, a constitutional court
is not denuded of its power to issue appropriate obiter or
prospective directions in aid of good governance, institutional
accountability, and to obviate recurring litigation. The Apex Court
has repeatedly observed that Courts may issue guidelines to fill
administrative gaps so long as they do not transgress statutory
limits [Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226;
Common Cause v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 530].
46. Keeping in view the larger public interest, the academic
ecosystem of universities, and the need to balance student
participation with academic discipline, this Court deems it
appropriate to issue the following directions, which shall operate
prospectively and without disturbing the adjudication of the
present petitions.
A. Directions to the Petitioners / Students
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (27 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
47. The petitioners and similarly placed students are
directed that, in the first instance, any grievance relating to non-
conduct or scheduling of Students' Union elections shall be raised
before the competent University authorities, including but not
limited to:
a) The Dean, Student Welfare (DSW);
b) The University-level Election Board / Committee; or
c) Any grievance redressal mechanism prescribed under the
University framework or as under the RSRU Elections Guidelines
and Rules, 2017 (framed under clause 32 of the Rajasthan
University Students' Union Constitution, 2017).
48. The principle of audi alteram partem requires that the
administration be afforded an opportunity to consider and respond
to student grievances. Direct recourse to constitutional courts,
without exhausting available institutional remedies, ought to
remain an exception and not the rule. Withal, qua the matter at
hand, the concerned respondent-authorities are hereby directed to
grant due and effective audience to the
petitioners/students/interested persons/aggrieved students, so
chosen, enabling them to put forth their respective grievances qua
the non-conduct of Students' Union Elections, on January 19th,
2026 on or around 11.00. am at a place decided/notified by the
Vice Chancellor/DSW qua the University and affiliated Colleges. It
is further directed that the representatives of all affiliated Colleges
under the respondent-University shall also remain present on the
said date and actively participate in the proceedings, so as to
comprehensively apprise the respondent-authorities of the issues,
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (28 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
concerns and practical difficulties prevailing at the college level in
relation to the conduct of Students' Union Elections. The
respondent-authorities shall, upon granting such audience and
after due consultation with the
representatives/petitioners/students as well as the affiliated
colleges, deliberate upon the grievances so raised and evolve,
formulate and draft an appropriate and workable modus operandi
for the conduct of Students' Union Elections for the forthcoming
academic years, strictly within the stipulated period and in
consonance with the governing statute, rules and regulations.
49. It is further directed that the aforesaid meeting shall be
convened pursuant to a duly formulated agenda, which shall be
prepared and circulated in advance by the respondent-University,
clearly delineating the issues pertaining to the non-conduct and
proposed conduct of Students' Union Elections. Upon conclusion of
the deliberations held in the meeting dated 19 th January, 2026, the
respondent-authorities shall take a reasoned, conscious and
informed decision on the issues so deliberated, including the
formulation of a final and implementable framework/modus
operandi for the conduct of Students' Union Elections. Such
decision shall be taken within a period of fifteen (15) days / a
fortnight from the date of the said meeting.
50. The decision so arrived at shall thereafter be formally
recorded and duly notified by the respondent-University, and shall
be made applicable prospectively, in accordance with law. The
respondent-authorities shall ensure that the said decision is
communicated to all affiliated colleges and concerned
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (29 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
stakeholders, so as to bring clarity, uniformity and certainty in the
conduct of Students' Union Elections for the ensuing academic
sessions.
B. Directions to the respondents / Universities and the
State
51. The respondent-University and the State Government
are directed to ensure institutional accountability and
transparency, particularly in light of the fact that fees are
admittedly collected from students under various heads connected
with student activities, including elections. The respondents shall:
(a) Constitute or maintain a duly notified Students' Union
Election Board / Committee, comprising responsible University
officials, which shall be accountable for decisions relating to the
conduct, postponement or regulation of Students' Union elections;
(b) Ensure that such Board affords a reasonable hearing to
student representatives or petitioners who approach it with
grievances relating to elections, thereby complying with the
principles of natural justice;
(c) Maintain proper accounts of election-related fees collected
from students and ensure that such amounts are utilized strictly
for the purposes for which they are levied.
C. Prospective Conduct of Students' Union Elections
52. Without issuing a writ of mandamus for the present
batch of petitions, as the present academic year is at the fag end
of its culmination, and in view of the fact that other
statutory/academic elections and processes are presently ongoing,
this Court consciously refrains from issuing any operative
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (30 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
directions for the current academic year. This Court is of the
considered view that, at this advanced stage of the academic
calendar, issuance of directions for conduct of Students' Union
elections may lead to avoidable disruption of the academic
schedule, examination process and allied scholastic activities.
Accordingly, the directions issued herein are intended to operate
prospectively, and it is clarified in unequivocal terms that no
mandate is being passed for the conduct of Students' Union
elections for the present academic year. The observations and
directions of this Court shall apply henceforth, to guide the
process whenever Students' Union elections are proposed to be
conducted in future academic sessions, in a manner that ensures
orderly administration without compromising the academic
ecosystem of the institutions concerned. Therefore, it is directed
as follows:
a) The election calendar shall ordinarily be issued in the month
of March of each academic year, so as to ensure predictability,
preparedness and minimal disruption to academic schedules;
b) The election calendar, once issued, shall be scrupulously
adhered to, and any departure therefrom shall be supported by
cogent reasons recorded in writing. Administrative consistency and
certainty are essential to uphold institutional credibility;
c) The elections, where held, shall be conducted within the time
framework contemplated under the governing statute and judicial
precedents, unless exceptional circumstances, duly recorded in
writing, necessitate deviation;
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (31 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
d) The mode and manner of elections, whether direct, indirect
or hybrid, shall be decided by the Vice-Chancellor or the
designated Election Conducting Authority / Committee, strictly in
consonance with the Rajasthan Universities Students' Union
Elections Guidelines and Rules, 2017 (RUSU Guidelines).
e) The respondents shall bear in mind that Students' Union
elections are purely student-centric exercises aimed at
representation, leadership development and institutional
participation. The Court makes it explicitly clear that every
endeavor shall be made to ensure that there is no political
"shopping" or no organized external political interference
(Illustratively ABVP, NSUI SFI, ASIA etc.), as also directed in the
dictum enunciated in University of Kerala (Supra) Accordingly:
(i) 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;
(ii) The existing restrictions on candidature, including age limits,
academic eligibility, disclosure of antecedents, expenditure ceilings
and other safeguards, as prescribed under the RUSU Guidelines
and allied norms, shall be strictly enforced;
(iii) These restrictions are reasonable regulatory measures and
strike a constitutionally permissible balance between democratic
participation and institutional discipline.
D. Academic Primacy and Use of University Campuses
53. It is further directed that, even during the conduct of
Students' Union elections:
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:51367] (32 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
(a) University campuses shall not be used in a manner that
hampers or paralyses the academic process;
(b) Teaching schedules, examinations, research activities and
access to libraries and laboratories shall remain largely
unaffected;
(c) Election-related activities shall be regulated so that the
primary object of imparting education is not compromised, in
keeping with the doctrine that academic primacy must prevail over
all ancillary activities.
(d) The Election Commissioner (University) or any other
competent authority shall be at liberty to frame, impose and
enforce such reasonable restrictions, regulations or prohibitions as
may be necessary, consistent with clauses (a) to (c) hereinabove
and in consonance with the governing statutes, rules and
regulations, for the purpose of maintaining academic discipline
and institutional order.
E. Directions to the Election Commission and Civil
Authorities Regarding Use of University Infrastructure:
54. During the course of arguments, the learned amicus
curiae as well as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that repeated exposure of university campuses to frequent and prolonged electoral processes, particularly when conducted in a manner analogous to general political elections, has the potential to adversely affect the academic atmosphere and institutional discipline of universities and colleges. It was contended that such an approach tends to politicise the campus environment, disrupt academic schedules, and divert students (Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM) (Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:15 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:51367] (33 of 36) [CW-11354/2025] from their primary role as learners, thereby undermining the core educational objectives of higher educational institutions. It was further submitted that the aforesaid consequences run contrary to the spirit, ethos and objectives of the National Education Policy (NEP), which emphasises holistic education, academic excellence, research orientation, discipline, and the creation of a conducive learning ecosystem.
55. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, and bearing in mind the need to strike a delicate balance between fostering democratic participation among students and preserving academic primacy, this Court is of the considered view that Students' Union elections cannot be permitted to assume the character, scale or intensity of general political elections. Accordingly, it is directed that the conduct of Students' Union elections shall be so structured, regulated and confined as to ensure that they remain subordinate to, and do not encroach upon, the overarching academic mandate of universities and affiliated colleges, and are conducted strictly in consonance with the principles underlying the National Education Policy and the governing statutory framework. Thence, this Court, while emphasizing the doctrine of academic primacy and keeping in view the transformative framework of the National Education Policy, 2020, finds it necessary to address an ancillary yet recurring concern, namely, the routine requisitioning and use of University and College infrastructure for the conduct of Parliamentary, Assembly, and Local Body elections by the Election Commission of India and allied civil authorities.
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM) (Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:15 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:51367] (34 of 36) [CW-11354/2025]
56. It is observed that institutions imparting higher education, particularly State-funded Universities and affiliated Government Colleges, constitute specialized academic ecosystems meant exclusively for teaching, research, innovation, and holistic student development. The infrastructure of such institutions is not fungible in nature, and once academic continuity is disrupted, the loss caused to students, especially in a semester-based system cannot be adequately restituted.
57. This Court is of the considered view that while the conduct of general elections is a constitutional necessity, the same cannot be effectuated at the disproportionate cost of academic disruption in institutions of higher learning, particularly in the regime of the National Education Policy, 2020, which mandates structured teaching days, continuous assessment, research engagement, and outcome-based education.
58. Accordingly, this Court issues the following prospective directions to the Election Commission of India and the concerned civil authorities:
i) That, as far as practicable, Universities, constituent colleges, and affiliated colleges imparting higher education shall not be requisitioned as polling stations, counting centres, storage facilities, or for any other election-related purpose, where such requisitioning is likely to impede teaching schedules, examinations, research activities, or academic administration;
ii) That the Election Commission of India shall, in advance, evolve and adopt alternate arrangements for the conduct of elections, including but not limited to the use of community halls, (Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM) (Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:15 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:51367] (35 of 36) [CW-11354/2025] government offices, or other public infrastructure, so that institutions of higher education remain insulated from avoidable academic disruption;
iii) That election planning and logistical arrangements shall factor in the academic calendars of Universities and Colleges, particularly those operating under the semester system, so as to ensure minimal interference with classroom teaching, laboratory work, libraries, and examinations;
59. That the underlying object of these directions is to ensure that students pursuing higher education are not repeatedly deprived of instructional hours, academic continuity, or access to essential learning facilities, which constitute the very core of the right to education.
60. This Court clarifies that the above directions are issued in the larger public interest, in furtherance of the objectives of the National Education Policy, 2020, and with a view to striking a balance between constitutional governance and academic integrity. These directions shall operate prospectively and shall guide future planning by election-conducting authorities.
61. These directions are issued in exercise of this Court's constitutional role as a sentinel on the qui vive and are intended to guide future conduct, reduce friction between stakeholders, and prevent avoidable litigation. With the above directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of, subject to the observations and prospective directions recorded herein. No order as to costs.
62. It is, however, clarified that this judgment shall not preclude the respondents from taking an appropriate policy (Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM) (Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:15 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:51367] (36 of 36) [CW-11354/2025] decision in future regarding the conduct of Students' Union elections, nor shall it prevent students from pursuing such remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law.
63. Accordingly, the present batch of petitions is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed.
64. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Election Commission of India, the Chief Electoral Officer of the State of Rajasthan, the State Government, and the Vice-Chancellor, University of Rajasthan, for due consideration and necessary compliance.
65. A copy of this judgment be placed in the connected petitions.
(SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /262-266 (Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 01:13:22 PM) (Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:15 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)