The Delhi High Court has recently criticized Delhi University (DU) authorities for their inaction regarding the defacement of public property during the ongoing Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections. With the elections scheduled for September 27, concerns have been raised about the rampant violation of rules and regulations governing student campaigning, particularly the extensive use of posters and banners that mar the campus environment.
Reports indicate that the election season has seen a surge in vandalism, with various student organizations plastering walls and public spaces with promotional materials, often disregarding guidelines set forth by the Lyngdoh Committee aimed at reforming student politics. The court’s reprimand highlights a growing frustration among students and faculty alike over the lack of accountability from university officials in managing these infractions.
The High Court’s intervention comes at a time when candidates from multiple student organizations, including the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) and Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), are actively campaigning. Despite the clear rules against defacing property, candidates have resorted to aggressive campaigning tactics, including loud rallies and extensive use of printed materials, which contribute to a chaotic electoral atmosphere.
In an order issued on September 22, the chief election officer had reminded candidates to adhere strictly to campaign guidelines, specifically stating that only handmade posters should be used on designated walls within the campus. However, this directive appears to have been largely ignored, as evidenced by the numerous complaints from students regarding the excessive littering and visual pollution caused by campaign materials.
Candidates like Namrata Meena from NSUI and Rishabh Choudhary from ABVP are among those vying for key positions in this election cycle. While they present their platforms focused on student welfare and infrastructure improvements, their campaigns have also drawn criticism for contributing to an environment of disorder. Many students express concern that such practices overshadow genuine discussions about important issues affecting their academic lives.
The court’s decision to hold DU authorities accountable reflects a broader demand for cleaner and more responsible electoral practices within educational institutions. As DUSU elections approach, it remains to be seen whether university officials will take decisive action against those violating campaign regulations or if this pattern of disregard will continue unabated.
