The Delhi High Court on Monday took a firm stand against the defacement of public property during the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections, directing candidates to commit to not repeating such actions in the future. Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered the involved students to submit affidavits and photographs proving the removal of campaign materials from university campuses.
This directive comes after the court halted the counting of votes, scheduled for September 28, until all election-related defacement, including posters, hoardings, and graffiti, was cleaned up. The candidates were given additional time to clean the mess created during the campaigning period.
“The candidates are directed to file affidavits along with photographs clearly showing they have removed all posters and hoardings, banners and graffiti and have taken steps for beautification of both the north and south campuses of the DU. They should also give an undertaking in future, they shall neither deface or mutilate any public property,” the bench stated.
The court expressed disappointment with the disruptive actions of some candidates during the election period, including incidents of “unnumbered” cars blocking roads and performing “drags,” which were highlighted in various videos. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to the Lyngdoh Committee guidelines, which govern student elections and include stipulations on campaign spending, the court reminded the university administration of its responsibilities.
In a stern admonition to the candidates, the court said, “You don’t have the right to deface walls of either the university or anyone’s private house. Who told you you can go and paint over it? Would you like that your house gets spray painted saying vote for x, vote for y? You must have a feeling for them, no?.. We want this generation not to take a wrong turn. We want them to improve.”
The justices even noted that several candidates from the Buddhist Studies course seemed to be using their enrollment as a platform for political activity rather than academic pursuit. This observation came as the court interacted with some of the candidates, emphasizing the need for them to set a positive example rather than contributing to the deterioration of their environment.
