Dismissed

Judith Davis v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Kerala HC9 Mar 2022WA/329/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant student challenged an interim order allowing a university election schedule to continue for his college, citing statutory lack of authority and previous precedents. The Bench held that since no other colleges objected and the process was underway, the impugned interim order could not be interfered with.

What did the court decide?

Prayers for stay of the election notification and writ appeal were rejected.

Judith Davis Vs Mahatma Gandhi University — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WA NO. 329 OF 2022

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 6859/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 3.3.22 APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

JUDITH DAVIS, S/O DAVIS ARACKAL OUSEPH AGED 20 YEARS, ARACKAL HOUSE, BN 122 A, BHAVANA NAGAR, ANGAMALY P O, ERNAKULAM, KERALA 683 572

¶9

BY ADVS.MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN KURIAKOSE VARGHESE V.SHYAMOHAN GEORGE J.NALAPPAT

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, KERALA 686 560.

¶12

2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P O, KOTTAYAM, KERALA- 686 560.

¶13

3 AL-AZHAR LAW COLLEGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, THODUPUZHAEXHALLOOR RD, THODUPUZHA, KERALA 685 605.

¶14

4 MANAGER, AL-AZHAR LAW COLLEGE, THODUPUZHA, KERALA 685 605

¶15

SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE,SC FOR R1 AND R2

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA NO. 329 OF 2022

:: 2 ::

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9^th day of March 2022

¶21

S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

¶22

Appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6859/2022 and he is a third year student pursuing his 5 year BA, LLB course at Al-Azhar Law College/ respondent No.3 affiliated to Mahathma Gandhi University/respondent No.1.

¶23

Being aggrieved by the publication of Ext.P3 election notification by respondent No.1/Mahatma Gandhi University and issuance of Ext.P2 Regulations, to conduct the election to the Students' Union/College Union, as per the schedule and regulations provided therein for the academic year 2022-2023, appellant/writ petitioner has preferred W.P.(C)No.6859/2022.

¶24

Reliefs sought for in the writ petition are as follows:

¶25

i. issue a writ of certiorari or pass appropriate order qushing the “Regulation for the Constitution of Students Union of Affiliated College/University Teaching Departments/Centres and Constitution of University Students Union and Conducting of Elections to those bodies” being Ext.P2 as ultra vires of the Mahatma Gandhi Univeristy Act, 1985.

¶26

ii. declare that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 have no authority to issue directions in respect of the programme of Students'

¶27

WA NO. 329 OF 2022

¶28

:: 3 ::

¶29

Union Election/College Union Election including the date of election and the mode of election;

¶30

iii. Declare that the respondent No.3 is entitled to decided on matter relating to the conduct of Students' Union Election/College Union Election in the college irrespective of the Regulations notified by respondent No.1.

¶31

Writ court, after considering the rival submissions and the materials available on record, passed the following interim order on

¶32

3^rd March 2022 in W.P.(C)No.6859 of 2022:

¶33

“4. It is contended that the 2nd respondent has the authority to come out with Ext.P2 only in the circumstances made mention of in Section 10(17) under Chapter III of the MG University Act, 1985. As per the statutory provisions, Vice-Chancellor is vested with powers only when the Syndicate or the Academic Council is not in session and there arises an emergency. It is further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Council of Principals’ of Colleges v. State of Kerala [2004 (2) KLT 995], after considering all the statutory provisions had occasion to hold that University does not have any authority to issue any direction to the affiliated colleges to conduct the election to the College Union on a particular date.

¶34

The learned counsel would rely on Ext.P4 judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court following the Council of Principals (supra) and it is submitted that this Court had held that the Colleges can conduct the election on any day at their convenience which cannot be on a day fixed by the University. It is further submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench by Ext.P5 judgment.

¶35

According to the learned counsel, even in Ext.P2 notification, no powers have been conferred on the

¶36

WA NO. 329 OF 2022

¶37

:: 4 ::

¶38

University to direct the affiliated colleges to conduct the election on a particular day. The notification only provides for the manner in which elections are to be conducted, that too, in terms of the guidelines issued by the Committee headed by Mr. J.M.Lyngdoh and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as per Ext.P3 order.

¶39

The learned counsel would rely on a judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Association of Democratic Reforms and Another [(2002) 5 SCC 294] and it is submitted that the right to choose one’s representative through an election is virtually an extension of one's fundamental right to freedom of expression and cannot be infringed except in terms of a law validly enacted.

¶40

Sri.Surin George Ipe, the learned Standing Counsel, would vehemently controvert the submissions advanced by the learned counsel. It is submitted that much water has flown after the judgment rendered in Council of Principals’ (supra) and in view of Ext.P2, there cannot be any embargo in the University notifying the date of the election. Relying on clause 19 of Ext.P2, it is submitted that the Syndicate of the University is empowered to fix the schedule of the election, the manner and mode in tune with Lyngdoh Committee recommendations. The learned standing counsel would urge that unlike the cases relied on by the learned counsel, where the Colleges had approached this Court, in the instant case, it is a student who has challenged the notification. Most of the affiliated colleges may have taken a decision to comply with the directions issued by the University as per Ext.P3 and this Court will not be justified in interdicting the whole process. It is further submitted that even if it is held that the University may have no authority to conduct the election on a particular day, the concerned college will have to furnish the names of the elected representatives of their College Union on or before 31.3.2022.

¶41

Having considered the submissions and in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Council of Principals’ (supra) followed by Exts.P4 and P5 judgments, prima facie, I am of the view that the University has no authority or right to direct the Colleges to conduct the elections on a particular

¶42

WA NO. 329 OF 2022

¶43

:: 5 ::

¶44

day. However, as rightly submitted by the learned standing counsel, none of the affiliated colleges are before this Court challenging Ext.P3 and in that view of the matter, I do not propose to unsettle the schedule except in the case of the 3rd respondent college where the petitioner is pursuing his education. To the limited extent of fixing the date of the election, Ext.P3 will stand stayed insofar as the 3rd respondent college is concerned. However, it is made clear that the list of candidates elected to the college union of the 3rd respondent college shall be furnished to the University on or before 31.3.2022.”

¶45

Aggrieved by the abovesaid interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, appellant has approached this court by filing the present writ appeal. According to the appellant, by the impugned order though the learned Single Judge held that the University has no authority or right to direct the colleges to conduct the elections on a particular day, but wrongly allowed the operation of the schedule of the Ext.P3 notification, to continue and thus limited to stay the operation of the schedule of Ext.P3 notification to respondent No.3 despite the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in Mahatma Gandhi University and Another v. Principal, Mar Augusthinose College and Another in W.A.No.2135/2019 and Principal, Mar Augusthinose College and another v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others in W.P. (C)No.17511/2019 and W.P.(C)No.20278/2019.

¶46

WA NO. 329 OF 2022

¶47

:: 6 ::

¶48

It is submitted by the appellant that the power invoked by respondent No.2/the Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University under Section 10(17) of the 1985 Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶49

According to the appellant, it is also pertinent to note that the power to issue regulations under the 1985 Act is cast upon the Academic Council under Section 25 of the 1985 Act, as the Academic Council is the authority empowered under the 1985 Act to issue regulations providing for matters as specified under the statute.

¶50

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for a direction to stay the operation of Ext.P3 Election notification dated 23.2.2022 published by respondent No.1.

¶51

Mr.Surin George Ipe, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the Syndicate of the University is empowered to fix the schedule of the election, the manner and mode in accordance with J.M.Lyngdoh Committee recommendations. He further submitted that no objection has been raised by any of the affiliated colleges before this court challenging Ext.P3 Election notification dated 23.2.2022. It is also submitted by

¶52

WA NO. 329 OF 2022

¶53

:: 7 ::

¶54

the learned Standing Counsel that interference of this court in this matter will affect the whole election process.

¶55

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶56

Material on record, in particular the impugned order made in the writ petition shows that none of the colleges have objected to the election schedule. The petitioner is the only student who has come forward to challenge. In any event, the respective college will have to furnish the names of the elected representatives of their college union on or before 31.3.2022. Process of election has already commenced. Giving due consideration to the material on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶57

Writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶58

sd/-

¶59

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶60

sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶61

jes

Judith Davis v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Judith Davis v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azeezla Institute of Medical Science and Research Vs Dr.Afnas T.P.

Paulose.a.a Vs State of Kerala

Johnson K.J.@ Johny Vypeen, Vs the Secretary

Ukkash a Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.Gita Gopal Vs State of Kerala

Crosslite Infra Private Limited Vs Director of Industries and Commerce Haryana Cum Chairman Haryana