In an ongoing legal matter concerning defacement caused during the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) Elections 2024-25, a significant development took place in the Delhi High Court on 19th October 2024. The Court heard arguments relating to the extensive damage caused by election posters, banners, graffiti, and hoardings across the University’s campuses.
Status Report from Delhi University:
Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, counsel for Delhi University, submitted a status report prepared by the Chief Election Officer of DUSU Elections 2024-25. The report, dated 19th October 2024, contained an optimistic assessment claiming that over 90% of Delhi University’s colleges, departments, institutions, and centers had successfully cleared their campuses of any election-related defacement. This statement was based on responses received from various university departments.
However, this claim was strongly disputed by the petitioner, Mr. Prashant Manchanda, who appeared in person. He, along with counsel representing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), contended that the situation was far from resolved, with much of the defacement still visible across multiple campuses.
Allegations of Incomplete Cleanup Efforts:
Mr. Manchanda, representing the petitioner, highlighted the ongoing defacement issue. He produced videos and additional photographs to show that a significant number of posters, banners, and graffiti had not been removed. The petitioner further accused several candidates of being responsible for the widespread defacement, naming individuals such as Bhaanu Pratap Singh, Lokesh Chaudhary, Ronak Khatri, Yash Nandal, Rishabh Chaudhary, Rahul Singh Dedha, Aman Kapasia, Deepika Jha, Shivam Maurya, Himanshu Nagar, Aaryan Maan, Rishi Raj Singh, Yash Panwar, Rahul Jhansla, and Priyanshu Chaudhary.
The MCD, which had to spend significant resources cleaning up the defaced properties, went as far as to demand Rs. 1 crore from Delhi University to cover the expenses incurred in cleaning the election-related defacement across 12 zones in Delhi.
Efforts to Clean Defacement Noted:
In response, learned counsel for respondents 8 and 9 (colleges and departments involved) submitted additional evidence, including photographs, which showed that efforts were being made to remove the posters and graffiti. Particularly noted was the cleaning and repainting of the Arts Faculty’s “Wall of Democracy” on Chhatra Marg, done in collaboration with students. However, despite these efforts, the Court noted that significant areas in both North and South campuses of the University remained visibly defaced.
Court’s Observations and Action:
The Delhi High Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the incomplete cleanup efforts, emphasizing that despite efforts by some departments and student volunteers, both the North and South campuses still bore the brunt of the “election excesses.” The Court observed that many boundary walls had yet to be repainted, and numerous posters, hoardings, and graffiti remained intact.
In light of these findings, the Court took the step of impleading the accused candidates—those named by the petitioner as being responsible for the defacement—as respondents. The Court directed that these individuals, along with the Delhi University administration, take immediate action to remove any remaining election-related defacement and repaint the affected areas. The Delhi University authorities were further instructed to inform the newly impleaded respondents via WhatsApp and email about the next hearing date.
Further Directions and Next Steps:
The Court ordered Delhi University, the MCD, and the Delhi Police to file updated status reports before the next hearing, scheduled for 28th October 2024. In the interim, the petitioner’s evidence, including a pen drive containing additional materials, was ordered to be kept in safe custody by the Deputy Registrar (Writ).
This case has brought to the forefront the ongoing issue of election-related defacement in educational institutions, highlighting the costs and efforts involved in cleaning up after political campaigns. With Delhi University being held accountable for the cleanup, the case continues to unfold, raising critical questions about responsibility for public property and the role of student political organizations in maintaining campus decorum.
Conclusion:
As the matter progresses, it remains to be seen whether the University will take more proactive steps to prevent further defacement and whether the implicated candidates will be held accountable for the damage. The case serves as a reminder of the significant impact of election-related activities on public spaces and the need for institutions to enforce stricter regulations to prevent such defacement in the future. The next hearing is expected to shed more light on the progress of the cleanup and the actions taken by the newly impleaded respondents.
