People's Democracy

Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations And 

The Inevitability Of Student Politics

K K Ragesh

THE recent interim order of the Supreme Court to implement the Lyngdoh committee recommendations on students’ union elections is widely accepted by the academic community. It of course was a setback to the vested interests that advocated for apolitical elections in colleges and universities. The six-member committee headed by the former election commission Sri. J.M. Lyngdoh, was appointed by the MHRD on the direction of the Supreme Court in December 2005 had to study on the diverse specifics of student union elections. After its regional meetings for public discussions in Chennai, Kolkata, Lucknow, Mumbai and Delhi, and considering the views of various parties, in May 2006, the committee submitted its report to the Ministry for Human Resources Development as well as to the Supreme Court of India. 

The committee, as per the order of the Supreme Court, was mandated to examine the alleged criminalisation in student union elections, financial transparency and limits of expenditure involved in such elections, eligibility criteria for candidates contesting in such elections including the maximum age limits and minimum standards of academic performance, and the need to establish a forum to address grievances and disputes arising out of such elections. However, the Committee after considering the views of various student organisations including SFI, teacher organisations, individual students, teachers and academicians has arrived at the conclusion that it should “step a little beyond the four corners of its mandate to make good the insurmountable task of balancing the interest of student democracy and political education with the larger interest of maintaining an ‘academic atmosphere’ within the university and the college campus”. Accordingly while submitting its recommendations on various questions mandated in the terms of reference, the Committee also made certain vital recommendations on the possible models of election as well as in respect of the larger question of whether or not elections need to be conducted at all.

The Apex Court considering the appeal filed by the Kerala University and the Kerala University Students’ Union against a Division bench verdict of the Kerala High Court had formed the Lyngdoh Committee. While considering the writ petition submitted by the principal’s council of Kerala against the Kerala University’s directive to conduct college union elections according to the existing model i.e. presidential form, the Kerala High Court had given the verdict that the right to decide the mode of elections (parliamentary or presidential) rests with the respective college authorities and hence set aside the direction given by the University to follow the presidential system of election. The Supreme Court on the other hand without entering into the merit of the issues involved in the High Court judgment, directed the MHRD to set up the present committee to examine the ‘criminalisation in student union elections, aspects affecting the academic atmosphere, indiscipline and divisions on the basis of political belief’ etc. 

As the report states that it is the verdict of the same High Court pronounced in 2003 in Sojan Francis case that impelled the principal’s council to approach the Court against the Directive of the University. In the Sojan Francis case the Court held that “it is open to the education institutions to prohibit political activities within the college campus and forbid students from organising or attending meetings other than the official ones within the college campus”. The question raised before the Court was whether an educational institution can legally prohibit political activities within the college campus and forbid students from attending or organising meetings other than the official meetings and whether such restriction or prohibition would amount to infringement of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution under Article 19 (I) (a), and (c). The Court was of the opinion that such restrictions will fall under ‘reasonable restrictions’ under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution.

The Constitution guarantees all citizens with the following fundamental rights under Article 19 (1)(a) to freedom of speech and expression;(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions. The Constitution itself clarifies that “the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part (Part III of the Constitution which explains the fundamental rights) and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void”. The Court that is assumed to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens from any kind of its infringement through state intervention surprisingly invents that forbidding such rights to students could be considered as ‘reasonable restriction’!

The Constitution itself allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights. It also explained the concrete conditions under which such restrictions can be imposed. The Constitution states that “nothing in sub-clause (a) and (c) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such laws impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.” Hence it is vividly clear that such fundamental rights can be restricted only when it consequently affects the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality etc. and never was it argued that the political activities of the students’ inside the campus resulted in such serious consequences any where in the country. Hence it is clear that the Court was arriving at illogic conclusions by taking note of the dubious allegations of the undemocratic forces and vested interests that the organizational activities devastate the academic atmosphere of the campuses. Further more, whatever restrictions imposed on the fundamental rights can be done only by the State. The Kerala High Court in its eagerness to restrict student politics in the campuses in effect had given the powers of the State, the power to impose such reasonable restrictions to the college authorities and private managements and hence lifted the college authorities and private management to that of the State under the constitutional definition of the term 

Many of the private managements under the pretext of preserving academic atmosphere in fact used the court verdict to bulldoze all the voices of protest. The verdict of the High Court, which allowed the affiliated colleges to decide the mode of election, is an extension of its verdict in the Sojan Francis case. Irrespective of the autonomy of the Universities to decide the mode of election on the basis of the rules framed, the Court opined that “the direction given to conduct election following presidential system of election cannot be sustained and the colleges are free to follow a system which is better for the administration and discipline for the college”. 

NEED FOR CAMPUS POLITICS

The Supreme Court of India while considering the Special Leave Petition, without entering into the merits of the pertinent legal question involved- whether the right to decide the mode of elections vested with the University or college authorities- as above mentioned, appointed the committee to study the various aspects related to the elections to student’s democratic bodies of colleges and universities. However, the J.M. Lyngdoh committee differing with the Kerala High Court judgments and even the primary observations of the Supreme Court, and arrived at the conclusion that the ban on political activities of students shall amount to an infringement of the fundamental right to form associations, freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the Constitution. While stating this, the committee quotes a 1981 report of a UGC committee, which reiterates the necessity of political activities. “Political activities in the Universities is natural because the university is a community of thinking people, of those who are exploring the frontiers of knowledge and of those who criticize and evaluate every idea before accepting it. Our democratic tradition, and now the constitution, ensures fundamental rights to all citizens, which include freedom of speech and thought, and freedom of association. Teachers and a section of students are not only voters but they can also be candidates in local, state or parliamentary elections. We, therefore, see nothing wrong in political parties being active on the campuses of our universities. Presentation of and debates about different ideologies and plans and perspective of national development are to be welcomed and political activity directed towards this end would be wholesome for the growth of the universities. 
We, however, regret to say that much of political activity, which we noticed and sensed on the campuses, is of a degenerate nature, which is a blot on the concept of politics. It is the politics of expediency, opportunism that is doing what we would be most advantageous at the moment to the doer and his partners; doing it while even knowing that it is wrong. The price of the little gain for the doer may be a disruption of educational activities for all. One sees this when campaigns are mounted to prevent action against those who copied in the examinations, or misused university funds in a variety of ways”. 

The committee while recognising the importance of campus politics is immensely critical of its wide-ranging mistreats. It is a fact that in many places especially in many north Indian campuses student politics is manifested with muscle and money power. However contrary to the so-called vested sections’ rhetoric of apolitical campus was not at all acceptable to the Committee and hence it fairly came up with a conclusion to strengthen the democratic space in the campuses. The active presence of constructive politics and true democracy can effectively defend the anarchy and disharmony in campuses. Political parties need not intervene in the campus elections. The spirit of the Lyngdoh committee report, which expressed strong observations about the need for organizational liberty and necessity of students’ union elections to the democratic bodies can be an eye opener to all those who are engaged in malicious campaign against campus politics.

The Lyngdoh Committee report also refers the evidences of the harassment faced by the students in the so-called “non political campuses.” The college authorities in the name of campus decorum often used to crush even genuine protests of the students against such misdeeds and exploitation. In some of the private campuses where students’ council exists, the management was nominating its own candidates towards protecting vested interests. The committee further observes that in some of the colleges owned by political leaders in the states like Maharashtra, elections are banned to stop students from joining other ideologies. Many politicians in Maharashtra are the owners of private colleges and such college-owing politicians lobby hassecured the enactment of the Maharashtra Universities Act 1994 which prohibited student union elections throughout the state and had student representation entirely on merit-based nomination. The Committee further states that the provisions in the Act that prohibited student union election are contrary to the Constitutional right of association. The Committee also noted the fact that the lack of effective student representation in the state had reflected in various instances of malpractice and exploitation of students by the managements of self-financing institutions and the neglect of the state in enforcing academic and co-curricular standards in educational institutions. The Committee further noted various instances of harassment of students by the faculty and the administration, including sexual harassment, charging of capitation fee for getting admissions as well as in the name of ‘infrastructure facilities’ to the students, and the imposition of unusually harsh norms on day-to-day student life under the pretext of maintaining discipline in the institution etc. The committee, taking into consideration all the above-mentioned aspects arrived at the conclusion that the democratically elected body of students in campuses and universities is inevitable and recommended immediate measures to establish such bodies. 

RIGHT TO DECIDE MODE OF ELECTIONS

One of the important recommendations of Lyngdoh Committee is about the right of universities to decide the mode of elections. The committee while recognizing the autonomy of the university recommends, “Subject to the autonomy of the universities in respect of the choice of the mode of election, all universities must institute an apex student representative body that represents all students, colleges, and departments coming under the particular university. In the event that the university is wide spread, individual colleges may constitute their own representative bodies, which would further elect representatives for the apex university body”. In accordance with the above recommendations, urgent steps to conduct elections are sought in the campuses including those where nomination system exists. While acknowledging the choice of the mode of election inherent with the university autonomy, the committee suggests four models of elections. For small universities with a relatively smaller student population the committee prefers direct election i.e. a system of direct election of office bears of the student body whereby all students of all constituent colleges, as well as all students of the university departments vote directly for the office bears. For bigger universities with a large number of affiliated colleges, the committee prefers both the direct and indirect forms of elections and hence rejects the Kerala High Court decision that empowered the college authorities to decide the mode of election.

The Lyngdoh committee recommendations designed to streamline the election process are broadly welcomed in the academic domain. The committee not only entertained the argument that the academic excellence as an eligibility criteria for contesting in the elections but rejected even the High Court finding that allowed the education institutions to prohibit political activities within the college campus and forbid students from organising or attending meetings other than the official ones within the college campus. 

The committee recommendations towards conducting elections shall not be implemented perfunctorily. It should be implemented organically by respective universities in accordance with the exciting circumstances towards ensuring the democratic rights of students as well as maintaining peaceful atmosphere in the campuses. Unlike the elections in some of the campuses including Delhi University, where multicolored posters and convoy of vehicles supported by the power of money and muscle dominate, there are many campuses in our country where elections are held in a healthy atmosphere and paves way for a democratic discourse and debate among student community. While implementing the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations one must understand the spirit of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, which uphold the democratic rights of students, and hence any mechanical interpretation and implementation must be resisted vigilantly. It is also now the high time to adopt the necessary the provisions in the statutes of universities towards materialising democracy in its true sense in the campuses and withdraw all the draconian laws that banned students’ union elections and democratic activities.

Lyngdoh Committee report is indubitably a set back for the so-called apolitical intelligentsia who tried to eliminate the democratic culture from our campuses in their eagerness to dance to the tunes of certain vested sections. It is the capitation fee colleges and reactionary political ideologies that are afraid of students participating in political activities. It is worthwhile to state that the stand of the former Anthony government in Kerala that filed an affidavit in the High Court to restrict student union elections was mainly to please private managements. The stance of Antony government, which supported the vested interests of private managements, is just another instance of the opportunistic politics of the Congress. The destructive politics aimed at easy access to power was the sole agenda since his foray into politics through students’ movement. Anthony and his friends in 1950-s never represented the organic and creative aspects of the student politics but they carried the legacy of opportunistic and destructive part of it by organising the notorious movement against the first communist government with the help of the communal and cattiest forces.

Indisputably, the Lyngdoh committee recommendations will become a well-built weapon to the progressive student movement that consistently fights to ensure democratic rights of the student community. It is also absolutely a set back for all the reactionary forces that try to eliminate the progressive ideology from the campuses by promoting apolitical ideas, destroying creative potentialities and crushing democratic rights of students.