Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner, a student of M.A. (Women Studies), Department of Women Studies at Panjab University, Chandigarh, has challenged the order dated 30.8.2018, by which his candidature to contest the election to the post of President of the Panjab University Campus Students Council (PUCSC) (for short 'the Council') has been rejected on the ground that he is being tried in a criminal case registered against him.

It is not disputed that an FIR No.0335 dated 16.11.2017 has been registered against the petitioner under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station West Sector 11, Chandigarh. It is also not in 1 of 16 dispute that after completing the investigation, the prosecution has filed the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.'), in which the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh has framed the charges against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The Dean, Student Welfare, Panjab University, Chandigarh issued the election schedule of the Council for the year 2018-19 to elect the Office Bearers, Departmental Representative(s) and Executive Committee. The nomination papers were to be filed on 30.8.2018 in between 9.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. and filing of objection to the nomination(s) was scheduled in between 12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. An objection against the candidature of the petitioner was made to the Director, Department-cum-Centre for Women Studies & Development, Panjab University, on which time is mentioned at 12.05 p.m., to the effect that the petitioner is ineligible to contest the election in view of Clause II(7) of the Eligibility Criteria for Candidates, contained in the General Guidelines for Panjab University Campus Students' Election. The Grievance Redressal Cell headed by the Dean Students Welfare sought legal opinion from the Legal Retainer of the University about the objection having been raised, which was tendered on 30.8.2018 in writing, in which he opined that in view of Clause II(7) of the General Guidelines for Panjab University Campus Students' Election, the petitioner is not eligible to contest the election because he is being tried for a criminal offence. The Registrar of the University obtained legal opinion from another Legal Retainer on the same subject generally, in which it was 2 of 16 stated that the candidate who has been made accused in any criminal case and against whom charges have been framed before the competent Court and has been tried for such offence that is to say trial has been concluded/come to an end would be debarred from contesting student's election/filling nomination and the candidate who has been made an accused in any criminal case against whom only charge has been framed by the competent Court and the trial is still pending, would be eligible to contest student's election. The same opinion had earlier been given on 25.8.2018 by a panel Advocate of the University. Besides this, a meeting of the Disciplinary Committee, constituted by the Vice-Chancellor, was held on 20.11.2017 to discuss the incident held on 15.11.2017 in the campus on the basis of which the FIR No.033 dated 16.11.2017 was registered against the petitioner and other students. In the said meeting, chaired by the Dean of University Instruction and was attended by Dean Student Welfare, Dean Student Welfare (W), Professor Sanjay Kaushik UBS and Professor Ashwani Koul, Chief of University Security. The said Committee found that the complaint was made by Pargat Singh, allegedly injured on 15.11.2017, stated to be the student of French Department, whereas he was not the student of the French Department of the University. The Committee took a serious view on it and after discussion decided that suitable proceedings be initiated against Pargat Singh as to why he mislead the Committee, letter be written to the police informing that Pargat Singh is not the student of the Panjab University, Chandigarh and it was also proposed that the outsiders namely Pargat Singh, Pradeep Gujjar and 3 of 16 Yadwinder Singh, who were involved in the incident may be banned from entering the University.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that firstly, the petitioner has been victimised as a false complaint has been made against him by a person namely, Pargat Singh, who is not found to be a student of the French Department and the Disciplinary Committee has decided to write a letter to the police in this regard and to take suitable action against Pargat Singh, who was allegedly got injured in the alleged incident occurred on 15.11.2017, on the basis of which the petitioner has been falsely implicated in FIR No.335 dated 16.11.2017. It has further submitted that the objections have been filed, though the time for filing objections was in between 12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. but objections against nomination of the petitioner were entertained before the scheduled time i.e. 12.05 p.m. He has also submitted that the legal opinion of the Legal Retainer of the University Shri Anupam Gupta, learned senior Advocate is not in accordance with law rather he has relied upon the legal opinion of the 4 of 16 other Legal Retainer Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, senior Advocate and the legal opinion of the panel counsel Shri Shiv Charan Bhola, Advocate, Mohali to contend that the provision of Clause II(7) of the General Guidelines for Panjab University Campus Students' Election (for short 'the Guidelines'), which he has not challenged in the writ petition, are not applicable to the case of the petitioner because the said guidelines would be applicable only on the culmination of the trial resulting into conviction. It is submitted that the mere fact that charge has been framed in the criminal case registered vide FIR No.335 dated 16.11.2017 would not suffice. In this regard, the sole reliance has been placed by the petitioner upon a judgment of the constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Manoj Narula vs. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1.

On the other hand, Shri Anupam Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of University has submitted that in the wake of the fact that charge has been framed against the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on the basis of the challan presented by the prosecution for the trial of an offence committed and registered vide FIR No.335 dated 16.11.2017, the minutes of the meeting of the Disciplinary Committee, in which it has been opined that Pargat Singh is not a student of the University is inconsequential. He has further submitted that the legal opinion by Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, learned senior counsel dated 30.8.2018 relied upon by the petitioner and the legal opinion of Shri S.C. Bhola, Advocate are by misreading the decision of the Supreme Court in Manoj Narula's case (supra). It is further submitted that Clause II(7) of the Guidelines, which is 5 of 16 based upon the report of the Committee headed by Shri J.M. Lyngdoh, the former Chief Election Commissioner of India relating to Students' Union election which has been accepted by the Supreme Court in the case of University of Kerala(1) vs. Council, Principals', Colleges, Kerala and others (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 304, and directions have been issued to all the Colleges/Universities to adopt the Lyngdoh's Committee recommendations in regard to elections to be held thereafter. It is further submitted that the guidelines were thus laid down by the University on the basis of the aforesaid decision in the case of University of Kerala (supra). While explaining the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Manoj Narula (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, he has submitted that in the said judgment Hon'ble the Chief Justice Dipak Misra was speaking for the Bench on the reference to interpret the scope and purpose of Article 75 and 164 of the Constitution in regard to induction of Ministers in the council of the Ministers in the Union and States having criminal background. It is submitted that the view expressed by one of the Member of the Bench by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur in para 122 is his own view and not the view of the Bench because as according to him the view of the Bench is separately recorded in para 96, 99 and 100 of the said judgment. He has also referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 92 in which object and scope of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has been discussed in which it has been held that the trial means determination of adjudication of issues adjudging 6 of 16 the guilt or the innocence of a person, the person has to be aware of what is the case against him and it is only at the stage of framing of the charges that the Court informs him of the same, the trial commences only when the charges are framed. He has also submitted that once there is no dispute about Clause II(7) of the Guidelines, therefore, the only issue is as to whether the petitioner would be debarred from contesting the election after his conviction or even after he has been ordered to be tried? In this regard it is submitted that in the said provision after the word "tried" and/or has been used for conviction. Thus, it is submitted that the word "tried" and/or "convicted" are disjunctive and not conjunctive. In this regard he has referred to three judgments. Firstly, in the case of Joint Director of Mines Safety vs. Messrs Tandur and Nayandgi Stone Quarries (P) Ltd. (1987) 3 Supreme Court Cases 208 in which the Supreme Court has read down 'and' used in the proviso as 'or'; secondly, the decision in the case of Ishwar Singh Bindra and others vs. State of U.P. AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1450 in which again the word 'and' was read as 'or' in the context of the case; and thirdly, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 677 in which again 'and' has been read down as 'or'. It is further submitted that had there been an intention of the Committee to use the word 'conviction' then there was no necessity of using the word 'tried' as well because according to him no person in India can be convicted without trial. The word used by the Committee, adopted by the University and incorporated in the guidelines in 7 of 16 regard to tried and/or convicted is in order to remove the criminalisation in the politics in the Universities/Colleges. The persons who are contesting the election and are being tried should not be allowed to fill their nomination papers. It is submitted that in Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution of India, which deals with the disquilification, it is provided that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of either House of Parliament if he is so disqualified by or as per law made by the Parliament. He further submits that Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides disqualification of conviction on certain offences i.e. by act of the Parliament. But in the present case not only the word "conviction" has been used by the Lyngdoh Committee but the word used by the Lyngdoh Committee is "tried" as well.