Pi News –
- Indian News
- On the recommendation of the High Court Lyngdoh Committee | Center and UGC request file response
New Delhi3 minutes ago
- copy the link
The next hearing against the Lyngdoh committee’s recommendation will be held on April 10.
The Supreme Court on Monday (February 12) heard a petition challenging the recommendation of the Lyngdoh Committee. This petition has sought to remove the ban on multiple contesting of student union elections as it is arbitrary and discriminatory against students.
The petition was filed by Naveen Prakash Nautiyal and others, a resident of Uttarakhand, against Lyngdoh Committee’s recommendation 6.5.6. Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan issued notices to the Central government and the University Grants Commission seeking their response. The next court session will be held on April 10.
What is Rule 6.5.6 of the Lyngdoh Committee Report?
Following the orders of the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Human Resource Development has constituted the Lyngdoh panel for student union elections held in universities, colleges and other educational institutions. Former Chief Election Commissioner JMLingdoh has been appointed as the chairman to make recommendations. This committee submitted its report on May 26, 2006.
It also states that a candidate will be given one chance to run for office and two chances to run for executive.
The purpose of the panel was to remove crime and the power of money from student politics. The report’s recommendations were implemented at all colleges and universities beginning on September 22, 2006, for student union elections.
The petitioner says that this rule is arbitrary
Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that no reason was given or argued for the particular recommendation for the petitioner. Such a rule is completely arbitrary and discriminatory. 6.5.6 Petition that Rule 6 is invalid violates Article 14 of the Constitution. It was also said that the recommendation does not meet the bilateral conditions.
Also read this post…
It is not unconstitutional to appoint a Deputy Prime Minister in the states
The Supreme Court on Monday said that the appointment of Deputy Chief Ministers in states is not unconstitutional. This is a status granted only to senior executives. The person appointed to this position does not have any additional privileges. The bench said- This process is adopted to give more weight to the coalition of parties or other senior leaders in the government. Read the full story…