The Supreme Court dismissed the plea seeking nationwide implementation of the 2006 Lyngdoh Committee Report on regulating student union elections. Formed under court directions, the committee aimed to curb money and muscle power while preserving academic standards in campuses.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court dismissed a petition requesting the implementation of the 2006 Lyngdoh Committee Report, which outlines the regulatory framework for student union elections in colleges and universities throughout the nation.
In response to the Supreme Court’s directive, the central government established the Lyngdoh Committee, which aimed to eradicate “money and muscle power” from campus politics while upholding academic standards.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi decided not to entertain the petition presented by Shiv Kumar Tripathi, stating that it lacked merit.
Lyngdoh Committee Report:
The Lyngdoh Committee was established following the Supreme Court of India’s directives in the case University of Kerala v. Council, Principals of Colleges, Kerala & Others (2006) 8 SCC 304. In this case, the Court recognized the rising violence, corruption, and politicization surrounding student union elections in India.
Consequently, it instructed the Union Government to form a high-level committee to develop uniform guidelines for fair and democratic elections among students. This led to the creation of the J.M. Lyngdoh Committee, which produced its report in 2006.
The Supreme Court later accepted this report, making its recommendations mandatory for universities and colleges, subject to reasonable adjustments as needed.
The Lyngdoh Committee Report, chaired by former Chief Election Commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh, was authorized by the Ministry of Human Resource Development to reform student union elections in Indian higher education institutions.
The committee’s goal was to reduce violence, corruption, and the politicization of campus elections, while fostering democratic participation among students.
Recommendations of the Committee:
- The committee established an age limit of 17 to 22 years for undergraduate students to participate in college elections, and set a limit of 24 to 25 years for postgraduate students contesting university elections, in addition to proposing other regulatory measures.
- A maximum limit of two attempts to contest at each academic level, and a minimum attendance requirement of 75%.
- Candidates with criminal records, disciplinary actions, or pending legal cases were prohibited from running.
- To mitigate campaign expenditures, the committee recommended a spending cap of ₹5,000, along with requirements for transparent funding and financial audits.
- It advised limiting the use of posters and banners to reduce visual clutter and instead encouraged debates, pamphlet distribution, and direct interactions over extravagant rallies.
The committee highlighted that student politics should focus on issues, remain free from external party influence, and align with academic principles. It also called for timely elections, mechanisms for grievances, and robust institutional oversight.
During the brief proceedings, Tripathi’s counsel argued that the petition aimed to enforce the committee’s recommendations to promote fair elections for student bodies in educational institutions.
The Chief Justice characterized the petition as “publicity interest litigation,“.
The Court remarked that,
“You just want to go out and address others (media). Only for publicity,”
The court dismissed the case after hearing the arguments from the counsel.
Although the Supreme Court accepted these recommendations, their implementation has varied across different states and institutions due to various practical and political challenges.