Delhi High Court | JNU’s Cross-Constituency Voting Rule in Internal Committee Elections Sustained | No Proof of Illegality or Unfair Conduct in Student Polls
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna has upheld Jawaharlal Nehru University’s decision allowing students to vote across all constituencies—undergraduate, postgraduate, and research scholar—in elections for student representatives to the Internal Committee that handles sexual-harassment complaints. The Court dismissed the plea challenging the validity of the election and the rule enabling cross-constituency voting, observing that the measure promoted inclusivity and did not alter the basic election framework. Justice Pushkarna noted that courts must exercise restraint in such matters, stating that election disputes can only justify interference when supported by clear, cogent, and credible proof of illegality or impropriety. The petition was consequently rejected for lack of any demonstrable prejudice or procedural violation.
The petition was filed by two students of Jawaharlal Nehru University seeking to set aside Clause 5(j) of the General Instructions issued for the 2024–25 Internal Committee elections and to quash the election results declaring three students as elected representatives. The Internal Committee, earlier known as the Internal Complaints Committee, functions under the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
The petitioners contended that the Presiding Officer had changed the election rules after the process had begun by permitting cross-constituency voting, thereby violating the principle that rules cannot be altered mid-process. They argued that this revision expanded the voter base and caused prejudice by reducing their opportunity to canvass effectively within a short period. They further maintained that the Saksham Guidelines relied upon by the respondents were recommendatory and could not override the notified Election Rules restricting voting to respective constituencies.
The respondents submitted that the change followed the recommendation of a duly constituted Committee to make the process more democratic and inclusive, ensuring equal voting rights across constituencies. It was stated that the Rules for the Internal Committee did not prohibit cross-constituency voting, and the decision was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. Respondents also claimed that no candidate was disadvantaged since all contested under the same conditions.
The Court examined the University’s Rules for the Internal Committee framed under the UGC Regulations, 2015, the Election Rules dated October 28, 2024, the General Instructions of November 1, 2024, and the Committee’s Minutes recommending cross-constituency voting. The pleadings and submissions focused on whether the modified voting mechanism violated the democratic and transparent character mandated under the governing statutes and university rules.
The Court observed that “the decision of respondent no. 3 to introduce Clause 5(j) of the General Instructions dated 01 November 2024, and thereby allowing students to vote for all the three constituencies, cannot be held to be arbitrary or discriminatory in any manner.” It stated that the change “enhanced the democratic character of the elections, considering the skewed student distribution in the JNU.”
Justice Mini Pushkarna recorded that “such cross voting across constituencies ensured inclusivity and equity in the electoral process, and eliminated any perceived or actual inequities arising from differential voting rights across constituencies.” The Court reasoned that the purpose of the amendment was to promote broader participation and that “increasing the voting base… cannot be considered as amounting to change in the Rules of the game.”
Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court quoted that if “basic eligibility criteria was not changed and a candidate was not disqualified, then widening the pool cannot be considered as change in the ‘Rules of the Game’.” Applying this, it stated, “expanding the voter base would not fall in the realm of change in the Rules after the election process had begun.”
It recorded that “the General Instructions increased the total number of voters per constituency and further made the number of voters in all the three constituencies equal,” holding that this “cannot be considered to be arbitrary, as the number of eligible voters in all the constituencies became same.”
The Court found no procedural unfairness, observing that “the General Instructions were issued four days prior to polling, leaving three clear days out of a total of six for campaigning,” and therefore, “the alleged difficulty of canvassing across constituencies is unfounded.”
Justice Pushkarna stated that “there is nothing on record to dispute that the elections conducted were transparent and democratic.” She added that “equals have been placed equally, and no candidate has gained any undue advantage over the other due to change of the Rule.”
The Court stated that “Courts refrain from interfering or invalidating an election, once conducted or initiated, on the basis of speculative or unsubstantiated allegations.” It further observed, “Election disputes require clear, cogent and credible evidence of illegality or impropriety to warrant interference by the Court.” The judgment concluded that the petitioners had “failed to demonstrate any material prejudice caused to them by the alleged change in rule.”
The Court held: “The judgments as relied upon, on behalf of the petitioners, do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the detailed discussion hereinabove.”
“In view of the aforesaid, no merit is found in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition, along with the pending applications, is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jivesh Tiwari and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhik Chimni, Ms. Pranjal Abral, Mr. Gurupal Singh, Mr. Rishabh Gupta and Mr. Ayan Dasgupta, Advocates for Respondents 4 to 6; Mr. Vasanth Rajasekaran, Standing Counsel with Mr. Karan Prakash, Mr. Harsvardhan, Mr. Om Bali and Ms. Deepshikha, Advocates for JNU
Case Title: Pushkar Raj & Another v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9660
Case Number: W.P.(C) 15411/2024, CM APPL. 64605/2024 & CM APPL. 2522/2025
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna
