Muskan Vs Satyawati College & Ors.

¶1

$~71

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 16^th September, 2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 14248/2025 & CM APPL. 58438/2025

¶5

MUSKAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Hemant Baisla, Ms. Neha Yadav, Mr. Hemant Kr. Niranjan, Mr. Ankit Singh, Ms. Shivani and Ms. Shikha, Advocates along with petitioner in person Mob: 9310065300 Email: [email protected]

¶6

versus

¶7

SATYAWATI COLLEGE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mayank Yadav and Mr. Jitender Verma, Advocates for R-1 & 2 Mob: 9213970111 Mr. Mohinder Rupal and Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Advocates for University of Delhi

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶9

MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL) :

¶10

The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to quash the Election Notice dated 11^th September, 2025, whereby the nomination of the petitioner was excluded from the final list of candidates for the Students’ Union Elections. There is further prayer for direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to contest the said elections.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a 3^rd Year B.A. (Programme) Student at Satyawati College, University of Delhi. The nomination of the petitioner has been rejected on

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

W.P.(C) 14248/2025 Page 1 of 5

¶14

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.09.2025 15:00:54

¶15

the ground of short attendance.

¶16

It is submitted that the petitioner duly attended the college and there was never any shortage of attendance on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that there were repeated administrative lapses on behalf of the college by allotment of multiple roll numbers to the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner’s attendance was incorrectly recorded under different names, leading to artificially low attendance record, despite her regular presence in the class.

¶17

It is submitted that the petitioner had initially enrolled in the year 2022, in the B.A. (Programme) under the Non-Collegiate Women’s Educational Board (“NCWEB”), University of Delhi. Subsequently, in the year 2024, the petitioner migrated to Satyawati College, University of Delhi, in accordance with the University prescribed Rules and Regulations.

¶18

It is submitted that the petitioner was initially allotted Roll No. 683, which was already assigned to another student. Later, the petitioner’s attendance was recorded under Roll No. 688, which also belonged to another student. After multiple complaints, the petitioner was finally allotted Roll No. 689 in December, 2024. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Pursuant to notice issued yesterday, learned counsel puts in appearance for respondent nos. 1 and 2, i.e., Satyawati College and Election Officer of Satyawati College Student’s Union Election. He submits that the petitioner has attendance of only around 45%, and thus, does not meet the requirement in terms of the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee, as per which, attendance of minimum 75% or more, is required for the purposes of standing for elections.

¶19

During the course of hearing, it transpires that the petitioner had filed

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

W.P.(C) 14248/2025 Page 2 of 5

¶22

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.09.2025 15:00:54

¶23

nominations for two posts, i.e., President and Secretary.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, upon instructions, submits that the nomination of the petitioner for the post of Secretary be taken as withdrawn.

¶25

The aforesaid statement is recorded.

¶26

Accordingly, petitioner’s nomination only for the post of President shall be considered.

¶27

Considering the submissions made by the parties, this Court notes that vide Notice issued by the College, information regarding the scrutiny of the nomination papers of various candidates, was given in the following manner:

¶28

W.P.(C) 14248/2025 Page 3 of 5

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.09.2025 15:00:54

¶31

Reading of the aforesaid Notice shows that it has been stated in categorical terms that the nomination of the various candidates has been rejected on the ground of not fulfilling the minimum 75% attendance criteria, as per the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee.

¶32

Accordingly, it is evident that a student, who does not meet the criteria of having minimum 75% attendance, cannot be allowed to stand for elections.

¶33

Thus, in case, the attendance of the petitioner is below the minimum 75% attendance criteria, the College would be within its authority to reject the nomination of the petitioner, or any other candidate.

¶34

Considering the submissions made before this Court and the documents placed on record, this Court is of the view that a personal hearing be granted to the petitioner by the Grievance Committee today at 3:30 PM. 16. The petitioner shall be allowed to show her proof of attendance to the Grievance Committee, which the Court is informed, consists of five Assistant Professors of the college, as its members.

¶35

The records, as may be submitted by the petitioner before the Grievance Committee, shall be duly considered and the attendance of the petitioner shall be calculated again, in front of the petitioner, during the course of the hearing.

¶36

The petitioner shall be duly intimated about her attendance, by the Grievance Committee, during the course of hearing itself, after collating all the record.

¶37

In case, the petitioner meets the minimum requirement of 75% attendance, the petitioner’s nomination shall be accepted and the petitioner shall be allowed to contest the elections.

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

W.P.(C) 14248/2025 Page 4 of 5

¶40

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.09.2025 15:00:54

¶41

In case, the attendance of the petitioner is below the minimum 75% attendance criteria, the petitioner shall be communicated the said fact. In that eventuality, needless to state, the nomination of the petitioner shall stand rejected.

¶42

In case, the nomination of the petitioner is accepted by the College, on meeting the minimum attendance criteria, the petitioner shall be allowed to campaign in the extraordinary circumstances, till 9:00 PM today.

¶43

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with pending application, is disposed of.

¶44

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶45

SEPTEMBER 16, 2025/ ak

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

W.P.(C) 14248/2025 Page 5 of 5

¶48

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.09.2025 15:00:54

Muskan v. Satyawati College & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muskan v. Satyawati College & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Amarnath Goyal and Anr. Vs the Commissioner MCD and Ors.

Raj Kumar Dhall Vs MCD & Ors.

Gurpreet Singh Vs Govt of NCT Delhi & Ors.

M/S Amazon Distributors (P) Ltd. Vs Gopal Bhardwaj

Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sanghthan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shri Aman Malik Advocate Vs Union of India and Ors.

Nafeesa Begum Vs the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Mr. Anil Kumar Goel Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- Delhi 10 and Ors.

Dr Amarnath Goyal and Anr. Vs the Commissioner MCD and Ors.

Raj Kumar Dhall Vs MCD & Ors.

Gurpreet Singh Vs Govt of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Shanti Kunj Main Residents Welfare Society Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ms Shobha Agnihotri Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Arpit Puri Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.