NSUI candidate’s plea may delay results
The results of Delhi University Student’s Union polls may be delayed this year, as the interim high court order, which allowed National Students’ Union of India’s Rocky Tuseed to contest the elections also states that the results should be sealed until the final outcome of the petition.
Tuseed’s name had been left off the ballot list for having faced disciplinary actions in the past, according to SB Babbar, the chief election officer of DU.
Tuseed had in turn moved the high court in the matter, and was reinstated after a favourable interim order. The HC sought to know from the University how a warning given to a student by a college could be termed as disciplinary action taken against him.
The same order, however, states that the results of the election should not be released until the final rulings on the matter.
“(Tuseed) is permitted to participate in the election of the DUSU for the post of president. He is also permitted to campaign for said post. The result of the election
will however not be declared; it will be kept in a sealed cover. Subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, final result will be declared,” reads the order, before renotifying the matter for September 20. The Chief Election Officer of the DU, however, is now under a dilemma as to how to “seal” the results.
“We usually count the votes in the presence of students or student representatives. So they will know the results. So, we will need a clear direction from the court as to what is to be done,” said SB Babbar. A member of the election committee at DU floated the idea that maybe they may not officially announce the results.
“Elections are done via EVMs, which maybe the court has not realized. So we will have to count. The only probable thing is that maybe we do not officially announce the results,” they said. “Tomorrow, we will file an application for direction in the court, to figure out what should be the way forward,” said Babbar.
Senior advocate P Chidambaram, appearing for Tuseed, had argued that the CEO could not reject his nomination on the basis of an anonymous complaint.