Did the Delhi HC Order a Fresh Hearing for DU Student’s Poll Nomination?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has ordered a fresh hearing for a DU student whose nomination for Students' Union President was rejected over attendance issues. This development raises important questions about student rights and university policies. Stay tuned as we explore the implications of this case.
Key Takeaways
- Delhi HC mandates fair hearings for students.
- Attendance records must be accurately calculated.
- Students have the right to contest their nominations.
- The Lyngdoh Committee guidelines set crucial attendance thresholds.
- Institutions must balance policies with student rights.
New Delhi, Sep 16 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court has mandated Satyawati College of Delhi University to conduct a personal hearing for a student whose nomination for the Students’ Union President was denied due to insufficient attendance. A single-judge Bench presided over by Justice Mini Pushkarna heard a writ petition from a second-year B.Com student contesting the rejection based on the failure to meet the 75 per cent attendance requirement outlined in the Lyngdoh Committee guidelines.
The student, Roop Bansal, contended that his attendance records were inaccurately calculated and claimed that he was not given a chance to present his case before the college. The petition, represented by advocate Ashu Bidhuri, referenced attendance logs and WhatsApp records from online classes to demonstrate that numerous classes he attended were not acknowledged.
In defense, the college administration asserted that the verified records indicated the student's attendance was only at 65 per cent. After reviewing the submissions, Justice Pushkarna remarked: “It is clear that a student lacking the requisite minimum 75 per cent attendance cannot be permitted to run for elections.”
Nonetheless, recognizing that the student had not been afforded a hearing by the Grievance Committee, the Delhi High Court instructed the committee to arrange a personal hearing that same day at 2:00 p.m., with faculty members of Hindi, English, and Accounts present to review the records. “The records submitted by the petitioner shall be thoroughly evaluated, and the attendance will be recalculated in the petitioner’s presence during the hearing,” Justice Pushkarna ordered.
The court clarified that should the student meet the 75 per cent attendance criterion, his nomination would be accepted, allowing him to participate in the elections. “If the attendance remains below the required threshold, the petitioner will be informed, and consequently, his nomination will be rejected,” it added, concluding the writ petition.
In light of the case's “extraordinary circumstances,” the Delhi HC also mandated that if the petitioner’s nomination is validated post-review, he should be allowed to campaign until 9:00 p.m. that evening.
Point of View
It's crucial to recognize the balance between institutional policies and individual rights. This case highlights the necessity for transparency and fairness in student governance. We must ensure that every voice is heard, particularly in educational settings where future leaders are nurtured.
NationPress
20/09/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the reason for the rejection of the student's nomination?
The student's nomination was rejected due to not meeting the 75 percent minimum attendance requirement set by the Lyngdoh Committee guidelines.
What did the Delhi High Court order?
The Delhi High Court ordered Satyawati College to conduct a personal hearing for the student to review attendance records.
What can happen if the student's attendance is recalculated to meet the requirement?
If the student's attendance meets the 75 percent threshold after recalculation, his nomination will be accepted, allowing him to contest in the elections.
What was the student's attendance percentage according to the college?
The college claimed the student's attendance was only 65 percent.
What was the timeline for the hearing ordered by the court?
The court directed the Grievance Committee to conduct the personal hearing on the same day at 2:00 p.m..
