Rajasthan refuses to hold student union polls this session, cites NEP rollout and academic disruption fears
In its affidavit, the state argued that holding elections at this time is 'not feasible' and referred to the Lyngdoh Committee's recommendation that such polls be held within six to eight weeks of a session's commencement — a period that has already lapsed for the current session.
The government's response included inputs from Vice-Chancellors of nine universities, all of whom opposed conducting the elections. They cited ongoing academic activities, adherence to NEP guidelines, and the need to maintain a conducive learning environment as reasons for the delay.
On August 6, a meeting chaired by Additional Chief Higher Education Secretary was attended by Vice Chancellors of nine Government Universities and College Education Commissioner.
All participants advised against holding the polls, warning that elections often disrupt classes and spoil the academic atmosphere. They also noted that both students and faculty members are still in the process of understanding NEP's provisions.
The government further stated that the petitioners' interests are not directly harmed by the decision, and therefore, their pleas should be dismissed. The petitions were filed by Rajasthan University student Jai Rao and others, who have demanded the immediate resumption of student union elections.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
18 minutes ago
- United News of India
SC upholds Bombay HC order quashing FIR in MP Mohan Delkar suicide case
New Delhi, Aug 18 (UNI) The Supreme Court today upheld the Bombay High Court's decision to quash the FIR alleging abetment to suicide and extortion in connection with the death of Dadra and Nagar Haveli MP Mohanbhai Sanjibhai Delkar in 2021. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria pronounced the order, stating: 'High Court order confirmed and dismissed the SLP.' The verdict had been reserved on August 4. The Court was hearing the plea filed by Abhinav Mohan Delkar, son of the deceased MP, challenging the Bombay High Court order that quashed the FIR against Dadra and Nagar Haveli Administrator Praful Khoda Patel, Collector Sandeep Kumar Singh, Police Superintendent Sharad Darade, and other officials accused of abetting Delkar's suicide. On September 8, 2022, a Bombay High Court bench of Justices Prasanna B. Varale and Shrikant D. Kulkarni had allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by the accused, holding that the allegations were unsustainable. Delkar, a seven-time MP, was found dead on February 22, 2021, at a hotel in Mumbai. His son lodged an FIR accusing the officials of harassment, humiliation, and conspiracy to force his father to commit suicide, invoking Sections 306 (abetment to suicide), 506 (criminal intimidation), 389 (putting person in fear of accusation of offence), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC, along with provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The FIR alleged that Delkar faced systematic harassment to seize control of the college he managed and to prevent him from contesting future elections, besides being publicly humiliated as he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. However, the High Court found no substantive evidence to support these claims. It held that the allegations were based largely on Delkar's perception of being ill-treated. The Court observed that no material showed attempts by the accused to take over Delkar's educational institution, and in fact, Delkar had successfully contested elections as an independent candidate. Quoting from its order, the High Court had said: 'If both these alleged objects are not substantially established and it is only in the form of certain allegations and an impression of the deceased, then asking the Petitioners to undergo the rigors of criminal prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of law.' The Court also ruled that the FIR lacked concrete evidence of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, noting that there were only bare allegations without incidents showing the accused acted in concert. Relying on precedents including Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court emphasized that a positive act is necessary to constitute 'abetment' under Section 306 IPC, which was absent in this case. Accordingly, the Bombay High Court quashed the FIR against nine accused persons, a decision now affirmed by the Supreme Court. UNI SNG AAB
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
U.P. school mergers: Supreme Court asks AAP MP to move High Court against order to merge low-enrolment schools
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 18, 2025) suggested to Aam Aadmi Party parliamentarian Sanjay Singh to approach the Allahabad High Court with his petition challenging Uttar Pradesh's 'arbitrary and unconstitutional' action of pairing and merging 105 Government primary schools through an executive action taken in June 2025. A Bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta noted that the issue was related to thousands of students and was related to an Executive action. Ideally, an Executive move ought to be challenged in the High Court concerned. The court further noted that the right to education was a statutory right under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, while also being a Constitutional entitlement under Article 21A of the Constitution. The court remarked that in cases when a right was covered by a specific statute, aggrieved persons ought to move the High Court first under Article 226 of the Constitution before agitating the issue as a Constitutional one. Mr. Singh, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, advocates Farukh Khan and Sriram Parakkat, withdrew his petition. He was given liberty to approach the High Court, which was requested to hear the case, if filed, expeditiously. The Rajya Sabha MP had said the State's order had adversely affected the educational access of numerous children. The State had, through an order of June 16, paired low-enrolment schools with proximate ones. A list issued on June 24 had identified 105 low-enrolment schools. 'As a result, several functioning schools have been closed or merged, forcing children to travel longer distances without transport, infrastructure, or prior notice. This violates Article 21A, Section 6 RTE Act, and Rule 4(1)(a) of the UP RTE Rules, since children are deprived of neighbourhood schooling… Closure or merger of schools, once established under Section 6 read with Rule 4, cannot be done by mere Executive order without legislative sanction,' the petition had pointed out.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court stays HC order reversing discharge of T.N. Minister, family members in DA case
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 18, 2025) stayed a Madras High Court order of April 28 reversing the discharge of Rural Development Minister I. Periyasamy, his wife P. Suseela, and two sons P. Prabhu and P. Senthilkumar from a 2012 disproportionate assets case, and directed them to face trial. A Bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu on the petition filed by the Minister and his family members, represented by senior advocate V. Giri and advocate Ram Sankar, challenging the High Court's decision to set aside the order of discharge of the trial court in 2017. The Minister has argued that these cases were products of the political rivalry. He had referred to a similar disproportionate assets case registered against him and his family concerning tax returns for the period from 1996 to 2001. The trial court had discharged them in January 2017. The High Court and the Supreme Court had not interfered with the decision subsequently. The Minister said the present case was 'foisted' when rival political party, AIADMK, was in power in the State in 2012. The Minister and his family members were charge sheeted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for acquiring assets disproportionate with their income. 'His wife, and two sons are majors having independent incomes,' the petition submitted. 'The entire case of the prosecution is based on the income tax returns filed by the petitioner and his family members during the said period which were also scrutinised and accepted by the Income Tax department. It is pertinent to mention here that the prosecution, with a malafide intention, by duplication of calculation, had added the amount carry-forwarded in capital account as well as the assets acquired / balance shown in the bank account out of the capital account, thereby artificially and erroneously inflated the net income, contrary to the basic principles of accounting. It is not the case of the prosecution that any undisclosed property or money or goods found or recovered from the petitioner or his family,' it argued. The Court tagged the case with another petition filed by Mr. Periasamy. In that case, the apex court had on April 8, last year stayed the trial in a corruption case regarding the alleged allotment of a High Income Group plot in the Mogappair Eri scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The plot allotment had been made to C. Ganesan, who was the personal security officer to the then Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, in 2008-2009. Mr. Periyasamy was at the time the Minister for Housing in the then DMK government. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) had lodged the case against Mr. Periyasamy in February 2012 when DMK lost the elections to AIADMK. The DMK again formed the government in Tamil Nadu in 2021. Mr. Periyasamy became a Minister. Two years later, in March 2023, a Special Court trying corruption cases against lawmakers had discharged him in the case for want of proper sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, a Single Judge Bench of the Madras High Court of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh had taken suo motu cognisance of six cases of corruption. Mr. Periyasamy's case was the first one. The High Court had set aside the discharge order of the trial court and put the case back on trial. Mr. Periyasamy had challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to reopen the case when there was no sanction for prosecution given by the Governor under Section 197. The Minister had argued that trial cannot commence against him without prior sanction. Sanction for a valid prosecution of a sitting Cabinet Minister can only be given by the Governor, he had noted.
