The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a student whose nomination for Students’ Union Elections was rejected on grounds of short attendance, directing the college to conduct a personal hearing before the Grievance Committee to re-verify attendance records. Justice Mini Pushkarna noted administrative lapses by the college in allotting multiple roll numbers to the petitioner, leading to incorrect recording of attendance.
The petitioner, a 3rd Year B.A. (Programme) student at Satyawati College, challenged the Election Notice dated September 11, 2025, under which her nomination was excluded from the final list of candidates for Students’ Union Elections due to short attendance. It was contended she maintained regular attendance, but multiple roll numbers were allotted by the college, resulting in attendance being incorrectly recorded under different names.
The petitioner initially enrolled in 2022 under the Non-Collegiate Women’s Educational Board, and subsequently migrated to Satyawati College in 2024. It was stated that Roll No. 683 and later Roll No. 688, both already assigned to other students, were incorrectly used for recording the petitioner’s attendance, before Roll No. 689 was finally allotted in December 2024.
The college contended that the petitioner had attendance of only around 45% and did not meet the Lyngdoh Committee’s recommendation of minimum 75% attendance required to stand for elections. During the hearing, it was noted that the petitioner had filed nominations for President and Secretary but withdrew the Secretary nomination.
The Court observed that a student not meeting the 75% attendance requirement could not stand for elections and that the College would be within its authority to reject the petitioner’s nomination if her attendance was below the required threshold. However, considering the administrative complications, the Court directed that a personal hearing be granted to the petitioner by the grievance committee. The petitioner was ordered to be allowed to show her proof of attendance to the grievance committee, consisting of five assistant professors. It directed that the records submitted by the petitioner be duly considered, and her attendance be recalculated in her presence during the hearing.
The Court directed that if the petitioner’s attendance met the minimum 75% requirement, her nomination would be accepted and she would be allowed to contest the elections. If not, the petitioner would be informed of the shortfall and her nomination would be rejected. It was also directed that, in case of acceptance, the petitioner be permitted to campaign for the remainder of the day.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Hemant Baisla, Neha Yadav, Hemant Kr. Niranjan, Ankit Singh, Shivani and Shikha, Advocates along with petitioner in person
Respondents 1&2: Mayank Yadav and Jitender Verma, Advocates
University of Delhi: Mohinder Rupal, Hardik Rupal and Aishwarya Malhotra, Advocates
