On 21st October, the Delhi High Court asked the vice-chancellor of Delhi University to be “proactive” and issued notices to several student candidates for damaging public property during the student union elections on 27th September. The high court summoned 15 candidates to appear before it on 28th October, explain their conduct, and declare the parties to the case. The bench led by Chief Justice Manmohan also comprising Justice Tushar Rao Gedela instructed Delhi University to notify the implicated candidates regarding the matter. “Those candidates who have majorly defaced the public property have to be brought here,” the court directed.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed to take action against the student organizations and potential DUSU candidates who were responsible for destroying, defacing, damaging, and contaminating public walls. The court decided that Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) election results would not be declared until the cleanup had concluded, emphasizing how crucial it is to address the defacement issues before moving forward with vote counting which was originally scheduled for 28th September.
The court noted that the posters, banners, and graffiti had not been taken down and refused to lift the stay on vote counting until the vandalism was rectified. The court sought the university’s stand on MCD’s (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) assertion that it hired private contractors to clean up this vandalism, costing Rs 1 crore. The MCD’s attorney asked DU for a deposit of the same amount to cover the cleaning expenses for 12 zones.
The court ruled that candidates could “also spend money to clean up public premises” while they were running for office if they could afford Rolls-Royces and other high-end vehicles and tractors. The hearing was posted for 28th October and the court instructed police, MCD, and DU to provide new status reports.
“There are cars without number plates in the DU area, (people) campaign in Rolls-Royce and other luxury cars, but the police and the university are doing nothing. Do you even have a vice-chancellor? We are saying it mildly that he needs to be proactive, or else we will pass orders. It is very surprising. You have to do something. These candidates study in your colleges, and you have full power,” the bench pronounced.
The Delhi Police and the university were questioned by the court for failing to take appropriate action against the perpetrators of hooliganism and defacement. The court ordered that Delhi University’s attorney inform the vice-chancellor that an administrative error had caused this uncomfortable circumstance and that he should take corrective action. The court observed that, in contrast to the university and college elections, such situations were not even seen during the municipal elections. It warned, “How can you permit students to do hooliganism on highways? You put it to the vice-chancellor or else we will pass some speaking orders.”
The court rejected DU’s argument that 90% of its campuses, colleges, and institutes were free of defacement. Pushkar Sood, a standing counsel for DMRC (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation), and Sanjeev Sabharwal, a standing counsel for MCD, both contested this, as did the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Manchanda. According to DU’s status report, it has “issued a notice/advisory to the prospective/contesting candidates to advise them to remove the defacement made to public and private properties.”
Meanwhile, Manchanda brought the magnitude of the defacement to the attention of the bench in a memo. It read, “Campaign materials, including posters and graffiti, were plastered across entire city roads/walls, college campus, protected green spaces, and even reached the offices of the director general of Home Guard, office of assistant commissioner of police, police stations as well as the walls in front of embassies of the Republic of Iraq and Chad.” After seeing the note, photos, and videos that also showed candidates blocking national highways, the Chief Justice questioned, “What is Delhi Police doing? There are all these unnumbered cars plying. Take some action.”
The court slammed, “How can you permit students to do hooliganism on highways? It is not a very happy situation. It is an administrative failure by DU that led to such an unpleasant situation. Remedial steps should be taken.” It further pointed out that police should take action against these vehicles on the road and described it as a severe problem. The court added, “That expenditure can go into drains. We don’t intend to stop the counting. You clean the place and the next day, counting will be allowed. These candidates have to spend money to clean the defaced university area. When they can afford big luxury cars for campaigning, they can surely bring a tractor and JCB for cleaning it up also.”
26 candidates “shall have to bear the liability to compensate the loss to the civic authorities/government department and DMRC according to the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations,” according to a 30th September notice from the office of the chief election officer for the DUSU elections.
A subcommittee has been formed by Delhi University, and the court is urging them to take responsibility. The court made it clear that it is not lifting the stay on vote counting until the defacement is fully addressed and is requiring candidates to begin cleanup efforts. The bench earlier stated that elections should celebrate democracy, not serve as a vehicle for “money laundering.” The Chief Justice highlighted the pressing civic issues in the city, including rising cases of dengue and malaria, attributing them to persistent littering.
Delhi High Court observations came following applications from two candidates contesting college elections at different Delhi University colleges, who sought a declaration of election results. The candidates assured the court that they would mobilize students to clean and repaint their college premises in collaboration with the university. The application is part of a larger pending petition aimed at holding DUSU candidates and student organizations accountable for damaging and defacing public property. The court had previously suspended the counting process due to concerns over these violations.
(With inputs from ANI)
