1. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, the learned Senior Advocate with Shri Nishant Namdeo, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.D.Jain, the learned Advocate General for the State. The controversies involved in both the cases and the subject-matter are identical. In Writ Petition No.14174/2010(PIL), the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to enforce directions issued by the Apex Court in the Case of University of Kerala vs Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and others SLP No.24295/2004 and in W.P.No.9657/2008.(Public Interest Litigation) Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad.Vs. State of M.P and another for issuing directions for the implementation of recommendation of Lyngdoh Committee. In CP 1200/2010 a prayer is made to punish the respondents for non implementation of the directions of the Apex Court in aforesaid SLP and also directions issued by this Court in WP No.9657/2008. Considering the controversy and the reply filed by the respondents, we propose to dispose of both the matters by a common order.
2. Facts of the case are that the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) 242951/2004 arising from an order dated 24.6.2004 in W.P.No.30845/2003 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam passed an order on 22.9.2006.This order is reported in (2006)8 SCC 304. For ready reference, relevant part of the order is quoted which reads as under:
"We direct that the suggestions given be implemented as and when the necessity so arises. It is made clear that the recommendations made, which we have accepted to be adopted as an interim measure, shall be followed in all College/University Elections, to be held hereinafter, until further orders."
3. The Apex Court in the aforesaid order directed that the suggestions given by the Lyngdoh committee be implemented as Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad State of M.P. And Anr. Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad Jaideep Govind and another. and when the necessity so arises. It was made clear that the recommendations which the apex Court has accepted as an interim measure, are to be followed in all College/University, in the Elections, to be held until further orders. Para 6.1.6 of the recommendations recommends that institutions must, as a primary objective, subject to the pertinent issue of discipline on campus, will implement a structured system of student elections by the conclusion of a period of 5 years from the date of the implementation of the recommendations.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of lapse of 5 academic sessions from the date when the order was passed by the Apex Court, the State Govt. has not taken any steps for implementation of the recommendations and this year has also proposed the election by nomination while the respondents ought to have directed for election by democratic process by accepting the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee and the directions of the Apex Court. It is also stated by the petitioner that in W.P.No.9657 of 2008 (Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad v. The State of M.P. And another), the Division Bench of this Court on 22nd Feb.2010 directed that the State Govt. shall ensure the implementation of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, but in spite of directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, no steps have been taken by the State to give effect to the recommendations.
8. In Contempt Petition, it is alleged that in spite of lapse of 5 academic sessions from the date when the order was passed by the Apex Court in this academic sessions,(2010-2011) the recommendations have not been given effect to and the State has directed for indirect election by nomination. Shri Rajendra Tiwari has referred various recommendations of the Lyngdoh committee, the orders of the Apex Court and of this Court in Writ petition and submitted that at Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad State of M.P. And Anr. Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad Jaideep Govind and another the time when the Apex Court passed the order, Academic Sessions 2006-07 was going on. The aforesaid recommendations ought to have been given effect to immediately after expiry of 5 academic sessions. Even after lapse of 5 academic sessions, the recommendations have not been given effect to and thereby the respondents have not complied the orders passed by the apex Court and this Court and have flouted the orders and committed Contempt of the order passed by this Court. Shri R.D.Jain,the learned Advocate General appearing behalf of the respondents with Shri Prashant Singh, the learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the State Govt. has taken steps to give effect to the recommendations and in this regard, the State has already initiated steps for the compliance of such directions. A committee was constituted on 3.11.2006 to ensure recommendation of Lyngdoh Committee as approved by the Apex Court by order dated 22.9.2006. The Committee submitted its report after constitution of students union for the academic session 2006-07 and the recommendations were to be implemented in the academic sessions 2007-08. In the meantime, the constitution of the students association was done by nomination (indirect) in the academic session 2007-08. Thereafter the semester system was introduced in the colleges and universities from academic sessions 2008-09 and, therefore, the constitution of students union could not be made by election but it was done by nomination.
9. For the academic session 2010-11, the State has taken a decision as under:
a) The State Government is committed to improving the standards of education. The Semester system has been adopted recently, which is the important recommendation of the National Knowledge Commission. The new system is in the process of settling and need time to develop. Therefore the decision on nomination and indirect election was taken keeping important factors in the core, such as the education environment, discipline, Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad State of M.P. And Anr. Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad Jaideep Govind and another.
quality of education, timely conduct of examinations etc. The review process on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court order dated 22.2.2010 has been fairly consultative keeping the best interests of the students in mind.
b) The Commissioner Higher education is the head of the Higher Education Department has agreed with the Home Department's view and has opined on 16.7.2010 that the present system of student elections of nomination and indirect elections should be continued. While doing so he has taken the view of different stake holders who meet him in various educational forums, offices and colleges all other the State, from time to time. These include the University Vice Chancellors, Registrars, College Principals, teachers, students, parents and education administrators etc.
c) The Principal Secretary Home Government of Madhya Pradesh has also concurred withs the opinion of the Director General Home regarding the law and order position and maintenance of the education environment in Universities and Colleges. The approvals of the Hon'ble Department Minister and the Hon'ble CM have been obtained in coordination.
d) The views of the vice chancellors of the Universities were taken into consideration during discussions in the Standing Committee meetings. They felt that the nomination and indirect election method should be continued for 2010-11. As per the feed back received by answering respondents there is an apprehension of law and order problems and, therefore, in the academic session 2010-11 decision was taken by answering respondents to constitute students union by nomination."
10. It is also submitted in para 11 of the reply that respondents have taken all necessary steps for the compliance of the directives of the Apex Court and also of this Court and are committed to conduct students election in accordance with recommendations of Lyngdoh Committee from the academic sessions 2011-12.
11. During the course of arguments, Shri R.D.Jain has also made a statement that the State Govt. has decided to give effect to the recommendations of the Lyngdoh committee from academic session 2011-12. It is stated that from the next Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad State of M.P. And Anr. Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad Jaideep Govind and another. academic session, the students unions/ association shall be constituted by direct elections.
12. Though the aforesaid statement and stand is opposed vehemently by Shri Rajendra Tiwari, who submitted that the aforesaid recommendations ought to have been given effect to in this academic session and the State Govt. has willfully flouted the orders passed by the Apex Court and this Court, but Shri R.D.Jain submitted that the interpretation of the State is otherwise. In absence of specific directions of the Apex Court, the recommendations are to be given effect to within 5 years and that 5 years shall start from academic session 2011-12. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance to Apex Court judgment in Ashok Kumar Singh and others vs. State of Bihar and others [ AIR 1992 SC 407) and Mrityunjoy Das and another vs. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and others [ AIR 2001 SC 1293] and submitted that where two interpretations of an order are possible then the benefit is to be given to the contemners. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it will be appropriate if the contempt petition is dealt with at the first instance.
13. The directions of the Apex Court are that the suggestions given by the Lyngdoh committee are to be implemented as and when the necessity so arises and as an interim measure, the recommendations shall be followed in all colleges/ universities elections to be held hereinafter. Para 6.1.6 of the recommendations specifically provides that the aforesaid structured system of the student elections to be implemented by the conclusion of a period of 5 years from the date of the implementation of these recommendations. The order was passed by the Executive Committee on 22nd Sept. 2006 and a period of 5 years will complete on 21st September, 2011. So far as academic session is concerned if it is calculated from the date of the order,
Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad State of M.P. And Anr. Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad Jaideep Govind and another. then it would be 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. So present is fifth academic session from the date of the order. As the Apex Court has not clarified the aforesaid position and has not directed for the implementation of the aforesaid recommendations within 5 academic sessions and if the State Govt. has interpreted it to be implemented within 5 years after the date of the order from the academic session 2011-12 a benefit has to be given in respect of the afroresaid situation because there were no direction of the Apex Court in respect of implementation specifically within 5 academic sessions. The Apex Court in Ashok Kumar and others (supra) considering the question held that in a case in which it can not be conclusively said that the respondents have willfully or deliberately or contemptuously flouted or disobeyed the orders and in case it is a case of misinterpretation of the directions, the benefit has to be given to the contemner.Similarly the Apex Court in Mrityunjoy Das and another (supra) held that where doubt persists the alleged contemners are entitled to have the benefit or advantage of such a doubt having regard to the nature of the proceeding. In the present case, in absence of specific direction by the Apex Court or this Court to implement the aforesaid recommendations within a period of 5 academic sessions. If the State interpreted it for the implementation of the recommendations within 5 years from the date of order I.e from the academic session 2011-12, benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the State and accordingly we find that no case is made out for willful disobedience of the order passed by the Apex Court or by the Division Bench of this Court.
14. In the petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs: (i) Direct the respondents to submit the entire record showing the action taken by it as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of University of Kerala vs. Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and others Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad State of M.P. And Anr. Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad Jaideep Govind and another. (Special leave Petition No.24295/2004) and as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad vs. State of M.P and others (WP No.9657/2008).
II. To command the respondents to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court while issuing appropriate guidelines for conducting the students Union Election in the State of M.P in all colleges and universities.
III. To direct the respondents to convert the models of elections, from the nominations model to a structured election model, based on a system of parliamentary (indirect) election, or on the presidential (direct) system, or a hybrid of both as per recommendation 6.1.4 of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendation.
IV. To direct the respondents to follow and implement recommendation 6.1.5 of the Lyngdoh Committee, wherein it was recommended that all institutions must conduct a review of the student representation mechanism.
V. To direct the respondents to ensure an institution of an apex student representative body that represents all students, colleges and departments coming under the particular University as per recommendations No.6.1.7 and 6.1.8l of the Lyngdoh Committee.
VI. To cancel the constitution of the Student union by Nominations scheduled to be held on 20th October, 2010 and 21st Oct.2010 for the session 2010-2011 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to issue fresh guide lines adopting either of the models enumerated from recommendations nos. 6.2.2 to 6.2.4 of the Lyngdoh Committee for the constitution of Student Union for the session 2010-2011 and there onwards.
VII. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may also be granted in favour of the petitioner society including the cost of the petition. As the State Govt. has stated in the reply which has been quoted hereinabove and assured that the aforesaid recommendations shall be implemented from the academic session 2011-2012, we accept the aforesaid contention and the statement made by Shri R.D.Jain, the learned Advocate General Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad State of M.P. And Anr. Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad Jaideep Govind and another for the State and recording the aforesaid statement, the writ petition is finally disposed of. The State is directed to act upon the statement made before this Court. No order as to costs.