Just two days before the elections to the Students’ Council, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday put the Panjab University on notice on a petition filed by a post graduation student for staying the election process.
Acting on the petition filed by Sachin Galav for setting aside an order dated August 31, passed by the university, whereby his nomination paper for contesting elections was rejected, Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain also fixed the case on Wednesday for further hearing.
Describing the rejection of his nomination paper as “illegal, unjust and improper”, Galav through his counsel Davinder Singh Khurana added the petitioner has every right to contest the elections as provided under the Constitution.
Going into the background of the matter, Khurana asserted the election to Panjab University Campus Students’ Council was scheduled to be held on September 6 for electing office bearers, departmental representatives and the executive committee.
The petitioner filed nomination papers on August 30 for contesting the election to the post of president to the Panjab University Campus Students’ Council for 2018-19. But the nomination paper was rejected the next day by a committee constituted by the university.
It was rejected on the ground that an FIR dated November 16, 2017, for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means and another offence under Section 324 and 34 of the IPC was registered at Sector 11 police station. Charges too had been framed against him.
The rejection was based solely on the opinion of senior advocate Anupam Gupta that trial against the petitioner was pending. As such, he was not eligible to contest the elections.
Objection regarding the petitioner’s candidature was also filed by three students before the university, which sought legal opinion regarding the same question from two other lawyers — senior advocate Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu and Shiv Charan Bholla.
Both were of the opinion that the trial had not concluded. As such, the petitioner was eligible to contest the election. Even the guidelines issued by the university did not debar the petitioner to contest the election.
Besides this, a disciplinary committee constituted by the university regarding the incident did not initiate adverse action against the petitioner. As such, the impugned order was also contrary to the facts as well as circumstances of the case and liable to be set aside.
