The two petitioners herein are admittedly charge-sheeted in a criminal case as admitted by them in the writ petition itself in Case Crime No. 164 of 2012 under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC readwith the VIIth Criminal Law Amendment Act. They have a desire to contest the students' Union Election of Kanhaiya Lal Basant Lal, Post Graduate College, Mirzapur which is affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi having the status of an University. The petitioners have challenged Clause 5(9) of the proposed election rules which disqualifies a candidate on the ground of having a criminal background and being involved in a criminal case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and if this is permitted then false implications will be resorted to with an intention to deliberately eliminate eligible candidates. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned clause referred to hereinabove deserves to be struck down for this reason.
He further submits that under Section 8(4) of the Representation of People's Act, 1951, a mere pendency of a criminal case does not bar the contest of elections to the Legislative Assembly or to the Parliament. The submission in short is that the offending clauses are arbitrary and impinge upon the legal right of the petitioners to contest elections. He further submits that there is no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by introducing such a rule when this is not a disqualification for the Member of a Legislative Assembly or a Member of Parliament.
Sri Vivek Verma on the other hand submits that the rules which have been filed alongwith the writ petition as Annexure -1 are the proposed rules whereas the Students' Union Election Rules have now been incorporated under Chapter XIII after being adopted under a resolution of the Executive Council and the rule which the petitioners propose to challenge are now incorporated as Ordinance No. 4.v.9. which is quoted herein under:-
^^4-v-9- fdlh Hkh mEehnokj dh iwoZ vkijkf/kd i`"BHkwfe ugha gksuh pkfg,A vFkkZr iwoZ esa ml ij dksbZ eqdnek ugha pyk gks vFkok orZeku esa vkijkf/kd eqdnek yfEcr u gks [email protected] vFkok og fdlh vkijkf/kd d`R; ds fy, nf.Mr ugha gqvk gks] vFkok mlds fo:) fo'ofo|ky;@egkfo|ky; }kjk dksbZ vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh ugha gqbZ gksA buesa ls fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa og pquko yM+us ds fy, vgZ ugha gksxkA^^ A copy of the rules contained in Chapter XIII has been placed before the Court which are now in force.
Sri Verma submits that the petitioners do not have any fundamental right to contest elections and the statutory rights have been reasonably guarded with the introduction of the said rule in order to prevent any unwanted elements to enter into student politics and spoil the atmosphere of the institution. He contends that the reputation of the institution as well as of the candidate has to be taken care of and it is with this point of view that the aforesaid rule has been incorporated so that unruly elements do not take over the campus activities of an educational institution.
He further relies on the judgment of the apex court in the case of University of Kerala Vs. Council Principals' Colleges, Kerala and others reported in (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 304, the orders whereof have now been referred to a larger bench by the apex court in the judgment reported in (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 353.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the University, the right to contest elections is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right. The petitioners therefore are governed by such statutory rules that have been framed and which are in conformity with the decision of the apex court in the case of University of Kerala (supra).
The Supreme Court while referring to the recommendations and accepting the same has categorically accepted the recommendation No. 6.5.7 which is one of the criteria of eligibility for candidates and is quoted herein under:-
"6.5.7. The candidate shall not have a previous criminal record, that is to say he should not have been tried and/or convicted of any criminal offence or misdemeanour. The candidate shall also not have been subjected to any disciplinary action by the university authorities."
The Ordinance framed by the respondent University is in conformity with the law declared by the apex court even though the same has been referred to a larger bench vide order reported in (2010) 1 SCC 353 in the same case.
Nonetheless the direction of the Supreme Court is binding and every authority is bound to implement it as it is law so long as no other law intervenes. The University has deliberated upon it and has implemented the same which is neither arbitrary nor does it impinge upon any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The petitioners are admittedly charge-sheeted and are facing trial and in the aforesaid circumstances they suffer from an ineligibility which as incorporated is neither irrational nor is it illogical. To the contrary, it is in the interest of the institution and its reputation. A student having indulged in a criminal activity cannot be permitted to raise a plea that such a provision is likely to be misused by falsely implicating somebody. This proposition is a general proposition and cannot be accepted for declaring the rule to be ultra-vires, inasmuch as, merely because a provision is likely to be misused cannot be a ground to strike it down.
Apart from this, if a person is falsely implicated in a criminal case, he has legal remedies available under the Criminal Procedure Code as well as under the Constitution of India itself.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners have been unable to point out any illogical reasoning that may lead to a conclusion about the irrationality of the impugned provision. In the absence of any such material or any legal proposition to support the argument, this court is unable to subscribe to the view expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no illegality or unconstitutionality which can be attributed to the impugned ordinance.
Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is hereby dismissed.
Dated: 5.10.2012/Sahu