In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur has dismissed a series of petitions demanding the immediate holding of student union elections across the state's colleges and universities. The court emphasized that while elections are a vital democratic process, they cannot supersede the fundamental right to education.
Court's Verdict: Education Over Elections
Pronouncing the judgment, Justice Sameer Jain of the single-judge bench underscored the primary purpose of educational institutions. The court observed that these institutions exist fundamentally to impart education and uphold academic discipline. Any activity, including student union polls, must align with this core objective and should not cause avoidable disruption to academic schedules.
The bench, which also included observations from Justice Vyas, firmly rejected the argument put forth by student petitioners like Jai Rao and Neeraj Khinchar. They had contended that not conducting elections violated democratic norms and students' rights to participation. The court categorically stated that student union elections do not hold a constitutional status and, in the absence of a statutory mandate, it cannot compel authorities to hold them, especially when academic interests are at stake.
Directives for a Future Framework
Instead of ordering immediate polls, the High Court has laid down a roadmap for creating a structured and transparent system. It directed the Rajasthan state government to formulate a clear, uniform, and reasoned policy for conducting student elections. Furthermore, the court has asked the Election Commission and other authorities to ensure that educational institutions remain insulated from unnecessary academic disruptions caused by election-related activities.
To achieve this, the bench has mandated a crucial meeting. All universities, colleges, and relevant stakeholders have been asked to convene on January 19, 2026, to frame comprehensive guidelines for conducting polls through consensus. The court added that if the authorities ultimately decide against holding elections, they must provide cogent, logical, and recorded reasons for such a decision to ensure transparency and accountability.
Legal Proceedings and Next Steps
The state government's case was represented by Advocate General Rajendra Prasad. The petitioners were represented by lawyers Shantanu Pareek and Anish Bhadala. The court also took into account submissions made by amicus curiae Abhinav Sharma.
This ruling sets a precedent by formally prioritizing uninterrupted academic delivery while acknowledging the need for a systematic approach to student democracy. The ball is now in the court of the state government and educational institutions to develop a balanced policy that respects both educational priorities and student representation by the 2026 deadline.
