Lyngdoh’s labour lost? Committee’s recommendations being denounced for their restrictive nature

With the Congress-affiliated National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) riding home to power, the recently concluded Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) polls not only ushered in a new wave of university politics but also brought to the fore the ‘infirmities’ of the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations (LCR) based on which the student body elections are conducted in universities and colleges across the country.

On September 6, just a week ahead of the DUSU polls, the nomination of NSUI’s presidential candidate Rocky Tuseed was cancelled by the university’s election committee, citing “disciplinary action” taken against him. Irked by the development, Tuseed had moved the Delhi High Court (HC), stating that in 2015, the Shivaji College administration had only warned him and no disciplinary action was taken against him.

While hearing Tuseed’s plea, the court had posed searching questions to the DU, asking for reasons for rejecting his nomination. Stating that the university was “stigmatising” Tuseed by cancelling his nomination, Justice Indermeet Kaur had said: “By no stretch of imagination can it be called disciplinary action.” The HC had then allowed him to contest in the election, stating that the result would be subject to final court order.

Tuseed went on to win the election but his future as the DUSU president is still under cloud as RSS-backed Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad’s (ABVP) presidential candidate Rajat Chaudhary has now filed an intervention petition in the HC, alleging that Tuseed concealed facts. 

The court termed the allegation  “very serious” and issued a notice to Tuseed. The NSUI, however, termed the ABVP claim “false”.

Student elections in universities are said to mirror the actual elections in the country — right from the exuberance to the accusations of use of muscle and money power. To prevent all this from happening in university and college elections, the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) had, in 2006, constituted a committee headed by former Election Commissioner J M Lyngdoh. The move was followed by a Supreme Court (SC) order.

The apex court, in its order dated September 22, 2006 had directed that the Lyngdoh recommendations be implemented and followed by all colleges and universities starting from 2007. Ten years down the line, the recommendations have been largely denounced due to their restrictive nature, with student leaders considering them highly “impractical” to be implemented on ground.

Disciplinary action

This clause, which states that the candidate shall not have been subject to any disciplinary action by the university authorities, is considered one of the most “arbitrary” among all recommendations as it does not elaborate what all falls under the “disciplinary action”. 

Also, the recommendations are applicable nationally even as the standard of disciplinary proceedings varies across universities and colleges.

“The Lyngdoh Committee guidelines do not define disciplinary action, which can lead to an application of arbitrary standards. Any reasonable standard of disciplinary action will require either suspension and/or absence of good moral character certificate from college/institution. Our candidate was not suspended, and also has a good moral character certificate from the same institution,” NSUI’s national in-charge Ruchi Gupta said.

Echoing the sentiment, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Students’ Union President and member of Left-backed All India Students Association (AISA), Geeta Kumari, said that this arbitrary regulation has become a “tool” in the hands of university administration to target activists.

“Last year, following the February 9 controversy, one of AISA’s very senior activitst, Shweta Raj, was not allowed to contest the student union polls as the university had set up a disciplinary inquiry against her for participating in a protest. Even if there is some ‘disciplinary action’ against a person, there should be a fixed time limit as to how long that will remain valid for a student who wants to contest elections,” she said.

Expenditure

According to Lyngdoh recommendations, the maximum permitted expenditure per candidate is Rs 5,000. The “use of printed posters, printed pamphlets, or any other printed material for the purpose of canvassing” is not permitted.

The recommendation is same for the student body elections in colleges and universities.

“How is it even possible that the expenditure for a college and a university election is the same? There are around 51 Delhi University colleges that participate in DUSU elections. Even to campaign with a single autorickshaw in all these colleges would cost much more than Rs 5,000,” ABVP National Media Convenor Saket Bahuguna said.

“In 2007, the value of Rs 5,000 was much more than what it is now. How is it even possible that the same guidelines be considered over a period of 10 years without any modification?” asked Akshay Lakra, NSUI State President.

Thousands of posters, caps, and pamphlets are printed by various student organisations, their cost itself adding up to greater than the prescribed limit. “Even in a residential campus such as JNU, a candidate has to spend more than Rs 5,000 to get parchas printed for campaigning. For a campus such as DU, the amount can go really high,” a JNU student leader said.

However, when student polls approach, every year, layers of posters cover the city.

“The committee’s recommendations confine the election process to 10 days, due to which candidates get maximum 3 to 4 days to campaign. How’s it even possible for a candidate to reach out to over a lakh students of 51 colleges spread across the city in that short a time, and that too without posters and pamphlets,” Bahuguna said, adding that, at least, the time limit for campaigning should be extended.

In fact, Senior Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General of India, Mukul Gupta, said that the clause was added without providing any alternative to student leaders. “The Lyngdoh Committee recommendations are applicable in universities across the country, including remote areas where Internet is not available. How can one expect to fight elections there without any printed material?” he rued.

“There is an urgent need to bring some realistic changes to these recommendations that can actually be implemented on ground,” Gupta said.

Disassociation from political parties

According to officials at the Delhi University, disassociating student bodies from their representative political parties, even after knowing their affiliation and backing, is dangerous. 

“Everyone knows that these student groups, including the ABVP and the NSUI, have direct links with certain political parties. While political parties campaign for the entire panel, candidates file nomination papers in their individual capacity. All the expenditure is done by the party, even printed posters and other campaign material is not distributed by the candidate,” a senior varsity official said.

Student leaders also termed the clause unrealistic. “The committee guidelines have deliberately used the term ‘student election’ instead of ‘student politics’. The Lyngdoh Committee apparently wants elections without politics. It is an unrealistic goal,” Bahuguna said.

Single opportunity

Another clause irking the student leaders is that a person is not allowed to contest for the post of office bearer more than once. “How can one expect to get responsible leaders from university and college politics when they are not given a chance to enhance their experiences at the campus?” rued JNUSU President Geeta Kumari.

The clause is also considered to weaken student organisations as they have to search for new candidates every year, who might not be that experienced in activism. “This clause puts no accountability on winning candidates to fulfill the promises made during the campaign. If a candidate would know that they will have to face students again, they will do their work more seriously,” Lakra said.

Gupta, however, said, “The clause was included to give everyone a fair chance to contest in student politics. Otherwise, influential people will continue to rule.”

Age limit

According to the Lyngdoh recommendations, students within a certain age group — maximum 22 for graduation, 25 for Masters, 28 for MPhil/PhD – can contest the elections.

The student leaders said the clause deprived students from marginalised sections of the society from a chance to participate in student politics. “There are students who start their education late due to their challenged backgrounds and they cross the age limit by the time they join higher education. The clause should have some relaxation for such students. Several student leaders in DU also complain of not getting a chance due to age bar.” Kumari said. 

Rules often violated

No candidate should be permitted to carry out processions and public meetings outside the colleges/universities
No candidate/supporter should deface or damage the college/university’s property
Use of loudspeakers and vehicles is prohibited during campaigning
Anything (eatables/gifts/drinks) other than water can’t be distributed on the polling day

EXPERT SPEAK 

Mukul Gupta, Senior Advocate
Several clauses under the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations (LCRs) can only be followed sitting in AC rooms. The recommendations that are being followed by universities and colleges across the country prohibit the use of printed pamphlets and posters in student election campaign, without providing any rational alternative. It is not possible to go online everywhere in this country as there are umpteen colleges located in rural areas, where there is no Internet. How would a candidate reach out to those students? It’s high time that such fictional clauses be replaced by some practical ones.

Voices of student Union leaders 

Saket Bahuguna, National Convenor, ABVP
It is impractical to consider that same rules can be applied to all universities and colleges. The 10-day election process clause under the LCR makes it impossible for candidates to reach out to each and every student in DU. Of these 10 days, we get only three to four days for campaigning. Is it possible for a candidate to cover all 51 colleges in those 3-4 days?

Akshay Lakra, Delhi President, NSUI
The recommendations were adopted in 2007, when the value of Rs 5,000 was totally different. Candidates are expected to complete their campaign in that amount in 2017 as well. How unrealistic is that? Forget about campaign goodies, one can’t even commute to 51 colleges using that amount.

Kawalpreet Kaur, Delhi President, AISA
These recommendations were actually brought in to curb student movements on campuses. No student activist can contest elections, if we go by these clauses, including the 75 per cent attendance criteria, academic arrears, age bar, and disciplinary action. There is an urgent need to make some reforms in LCRs as right now the recommendations are merely on paper.