New Delhi: The results of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) election were finally declared this week. However, it is being alleged that the previous Left-dominated union was responsible for the recent legal crisis that saw even a stay order from the Delhi High Court on announcing the results.
The JNUSU elections got tangled in a dispute when two JNU students filed a petition alleging that their nomination papers were rejected illegally. The students had filed nominations for the councilor’s post in the MBA department. Following this, the Delhi High Court had ordered a stay on declaration of the poll results on 8 September. On 17 September, the Delhi High Court finally granted permission to release the results.
According to an amendment in the JNUSU constitution by the previous Left Unity students’ union, centres and departments where the number of students doesn’t exceed 50 were barred from having councilors.
The Grievance Redressal Cell (GRC) of JNU had sent a notice to the Election Committee of JNUSU Election 2019-20 for violating the Lyngdoh Committee Report and guidelines of the Supreme Court. According to the GRC, the 2019-20 JNUSU election was not conducted as per the JNUSU constitution applicable at the time of the commencement of the election. The GRC in its notice also said: “As per the JNUSU constitution, representation to all schools/ special centres has not been given in the JNUSU election 20219 20.”
Nirban Ray, an activist of the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students’ Association (BAPSA), told The Sunday Guardian that this new amendment of the JNUSU constitution left several departments and centres without any representative. He said that N. Sai Balaji, former JNUSU president, was aware of the legal implications of this year’s JNUSU election. “In the extraordinary University General Body Meeting (UGBM) called by the JNUSU for amendment of its constitution, the BAPSA strongly raised the unclear issues of representation for councilors at different school levels and possible violation of Lyngdoh panel norms. The JNUSU constitution was amended without resolving the issues and that gave rise to the legal crisis,” Ray added.
Some centres were not able to elect their councilors to the JNUSU due to them having a small number of students. Centres like Special Centre for the Study of North East India and MBA, which have around 30 to 40 students, were affected by this amendment. The students’ organisations in the university have long been demanding fair representation from all the departments/schools by decreasing the ratio of students per councilor. However, the new amendment increased the ratio of students per councilors.
Ambesh Pandey, an activist of the ABVP JNU unit, said: “ABVP has been demanding that all schools and departments be given councilors. With the amendment, some centres got councilors and some didn’t. The MBA department which has more than 40 students did not get any councilor to represent them. Thus, some MBA students approached the HC seeking their representation in JNUSU. The ABVP’s stand here is clear. We want each and every department and centre in the university to have their representative in JNUSU and all 55 posts of councilors in JNUSU should be filled.”
However, N. Sai Balaji refused to accept that the recent legal crisis was due to any amendment in the JNUSU constitution. While blaming the administration, he said, “The crisis was because of the administration’s interference in JNUSU.”