Lyngdoh Committee


The National Green Tribune (NGT) has issued a warning to the University of Delhi (DU) in particular regarding non-compliance with the tribunal.

The National Green Tribune (NGT), having failed to make a mark with words, resorted to action on Wednesday issuing a warning to the University of Delhi (DU), the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) regarding the wastage of paper during the polls this year.

A plea was filed by Nithin Chandran, a third year law student in DU when he was flabbergasted by the modus operandi of campaigning through the humongous wastage of paper. The plea read-“On every election, tonnes of paper are wasted for canvassing by the candidates and their supporters. Wherein, there is no accountability for usage of paper and neither there is any norm or procedure for re-cycling of this waste paper”. Relying upon the report published by the TIMES OF INDIA, the NGT was informed of the non-compliance of its order on Tuesday by the counsels of the law student- Piyush Singh and Aditya Parolia. The bench consisted of the NGT Chairperson Justice Swatanter Kumar and B S Sajwan.

The conduct of the elections is based on the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee to be implemented from the year 2006 by the order of the Supreme Court which stated- “No candidate shall be permitted to make use of printed posters, printed pamphlets, or any other printed material for the purpose of canvassing”. “Candidates may only utilize hand- made posters at certain places in the campus, which shall be notified in advance by the election commission/university authority”.

The NGT has thereby, issued a warning to the DU students of rusticating if caught in action. Under section 26 of the NGT Act 2010, the maximum punishment if found guilty of contempt of the orders, is three years’ of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10 crores.

Apart from just the art work on the walls as well as the premises of the campus; it becomes imperative to note that the littered papers are not disposed of properly or re-cycled, hence, leaving an imprint of the elections held every year. On the contrary, the Lyngdoh Committee states- “All the candidates shall be jointly responsible for ensuring the cleaning up of the polling area within 48 hours of the conclusion of polling”.

According to reports, while the next hearing is scheduled for the 18th of this month; the DUSU polls are ahead on the 12th. With all of this happening; we have to watch out for the big day and the probable last minute changes that the manifestos of the several parties might suffer.

Shrija Ganguly

[email protected] 

Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations are perhaps the most cited phrases in DUSU politics today. To understand its importance and relevance, it’s necessary to know that they were approved by the Supreme Court in 2006, to curb the use of muscle power and money in student politics. The aim was to reform the election system to make it more inclusive for students and involve fewer malpractices. Unfortunately, the guidelines have received brickbats from students and politicians alike, as many clauses are unrealistic and utopian.

Lyngdoh had aimed to keep political interference out from student elections but unfortunately failed to realise that this endeavour doesn’t exist without acknowledging the ‘political’ aspect of student political parties. To escape these restrictive guidelines, parties have identified loopholes, a few such examples being:
Clause 6.6.1: The maximum permitted expenditure per candidate shall be INR 5000.
Probably the most flouted clause in the recommendations, parties spend as much as lakhs to print countless pamphlets and hoardings that can be seen across the campus. The loophole that every party takes advantage of is that the guidelines restrict the candidate’s expenditure to INR 5000, but nothing has been mentioned for the candidate’s respective party. All major parties reiterate this reasoning to escape legal action.
Clause 6.7.5: No candidate shall be permitted to make use of printed posters, printed pamphlets, or any other printed material for the purpose of canvassing. Candidates may only utilize hand-made posters for the purpose of canvassing, provided that such hand-made posters are procured within the expenditure limit set out herein above.
To cleverly counter this, parties have been releasing posters that misspell the name of its candidate but allow it to be distinguished back to the party as well. The use of an extra ‘A’ after the name would save it from any legal consequences.
Clause 6.7.9: During the election period the candidates may hold processions and/or public meetings, provided that they do not, in any manner, disturb classes and other academic and co curricular activities of the college/university. Further, such procession / public meeting may not be held without the prior written permission of the college/university authority.
It’s common knowledge that campaigners do disturb classes and disrupt routine workings in a college. It’s also never the candidate alone who partakes in this, more often the supporters do the loud sloganeering or get involved in brawls. Since the LCR specifies nothing for parties, political outfits do it as per their will, and candidates are absolved from all responsibility for its party’s action.
What could also be a major advantage for political parties is that the LCR are only applicable from the day the nominations are declared. Up until that day, parties can freely distribute pamphlets urging students to join their organisation.
Apart from one clause in the Lyngdoh Committee guidelines that calls for dissociation of student elections and political parties, there is no clause that directly links the entire party with the administration or puts it under the purview of the election officer’s power. This requires an urgent overview of the recommendations to make them more realistic to plug the loopholes and acknowledge the ‘politics’ in student elections.
Image Credits: Hindustan Times
Vijeata Balani
[email protected]

Quite conspicuously, the use of muscle power and excessive money in spirit is something that both major student union bodies and political parties at the state and national level deny with air of confidence. The layman, who although knows that there lies hidden acceptance to malpractices behind such denial indulges into a paradoxical form of behaviour. They both accept and deny the claims. Their acceptance to the self cleansing by many political outfits is fuelled by their faith in democracy and their denial to such cleansing by their conscience. Who is the oxymoron here, the layman or the many behaviourally similar political outfits or perhaps both?

The imagery that student union elections bring about is that of propaganda pamphlets all over the earth’s crust, vehicles as portable posters or humans themselves or the quintessential electronic store scene on every wall – every poster on the wall mimicking the televisions in electronic stores which show identical graphic. Imagery, after all is supposed to be imagination’s play and different with different people. But, due to the similar definitions which have naturalised these elements of elections, visualisation of student union elections is done in the same way by different minds. It was indeed necessary to call such practice as a part of the naturalised state affairs since the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee deemed them so and subsequently said that the moral ground to be thus taken during college elections is a different one.

Formed by UPA government on the recommendations of the Supreme Court in 2005 in the wake of the horrific lynching of Prof. H S Sabarwal of Government Madhav College Ujjain by an ABVP mob, Lyngdoh Committee was formed to give recommendations to ‘cleanse the system of muscle power and regulate college elections.’ The Committee was headed by one of the former Chief Election Commissioners of India J M Lyngdoh and submitted its report in 2006 after which the Supreme Court ordered the implemented of the recommendations.

One of the recommendations numbered 6.7.5 says that ‘No candidate shall be permitted to make use of printed posters printed pamphlets, or any other printed material for the purpose of canvassing. Candidates may only utilise hand-made posters for the purpose of canvassing’. This led to outrage from major student bodies like the Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishiad( ABVP) and National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) which claimed that such recommendation in practice would impede the democratic functioning of electoral machinery and would deter the candidates in reaching out to the electorate and thus campaign effectively. Although the outrage went unheard and no further debates were entertained, many bodies continued to use pamphlets which were in violation of the code. The Supreme Court never took suo motu cognisance of such instances and neither has the government taken any action in this regard. There are also certain student bodies which have been compliant with the recommendation and have as a result had to face unfair competition despite the Lyngdoh recommendations already being in practice on paper.


The committee also put a utopian bar on the maximum expenditure on campaigning by a candidate to Rs 5000. Many outfits continue to use more money which is explicit from the material investments they make pre elections. The committee ignored the indulgence of crony capitalists and national political parties which regularly fund many student bodies that then use the money to indulge into ‘cash or kind for votes’ by majorly distributing movie tickets and organising trips to lure the electorate.


Flouting of the recommendations is done even when defacement of property is done by putting posters around. According to the committee ‘Candidates may only utilise hand-made posters at certain places in the campus, which shall be notified in advance by the election commission / university authority.’ (6.7.6). No such step is taken by many universities, which hints at the involvement of college administrations along with the judiciary and the government in the rupturing of the recommendations. University authorities also hold the power to disqualify candidates violating the recommendations.


Major loopholes in the recommendations were brought to public scrutiny by various student bodies in 2008 when Jawaharlal Nehru University’s elections were cancelled due to alleged malpractices. The All India Students Association (AISA) along with students from universities like Allahabad University, BHU, Jamia Millia Islamia, Punjab University, DU and Garhwal University protested against the ‘assault on democracy’ by the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations. Then, 8 out of 24 central universities held annual elections as per the data provided by the HRD Minister Arjun Singh to a question in the Rajya Sabha on October 20, 2008. This indeed was a violation of recommendations which say that elections are mandatory for every university in order to uphold student democracy.


With many malpractices up on the pedestal, it is also important for the electorate to vote for the bodies which although may flout the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations do not, after all compromise on the free and fair conduct of elections and endeavour to promote equality in the realm of campaigning. This time, vote wisely to ensure that democracy wins over muscle power and money. Violation of these major recommendations apart from others can strip a candidate of his/her candidature: Use of vehicles for campaigning, using printed pamphlets and not handmade ones, disturbing the academic orientation of a college for campaigning, using caste as a political tool, giving freebees, defacing university property, putting posters outside the university campus and indulging in physical violence.


Sidharth Yadav

[email protected]