PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has ordered the postponement of the Goa University Students’ Council elections that were to be held on November 3 after hearing a petition by a student leader that the University extended the time for filing nominations allegedly to benefit certain candidates.
Hearing a petition filed by one Shane Rebelo, the High Court ruled that since arguable issues were raised and that postponing of the elections in which a mere 62 UFRs (University Faculty Representatives) were to take part would not cause too much inconvenience.
“This is an election involving hardly 62 UFRs. Accordingly it is not as if such an election cannot be postponed for some reasonable period until all necessary parties are before us and we have some time to decide the matter, which involves arguable issues... we think that the polling involving hardly 62 UFRs could be held in the first week of December 2023. We propose to post this matter on November 28 for disposal at the admission stage,” the High Court bench of Justices M S Sonak and Bharat Deshpande ruled.
The entire electoral body for the elections to the Students Council could have theoretically comprised only 80 UFRs. Because of allegations of non-compliance with certain rules and regulations or procedural formalities, the voters’ list was restricted only to 42 UFRs.
Some of the excluded UFRs approached the GRC and the GRC by its order dated October 30, found merit in the grievances of around 20 UFRs. Therefore orders were issued to include 20 UFRs and for an extension of the time limit to enable them to file their nominations.
“This extension, at least prima facie, was to facilitate the filing of nominations by these 20 UFRs who were belatedly included in the eligible voters’ list of UFRs. Taking advantage of all this, even the UFRs who had no handicaps in filing their nominations within the initially prescribed election schedule also filed their nominations, and they were allowed to do so. This exercise calls for greater scrutiny,” the High court observed.
“At least prima facie, there was no handicap for these UFRs to file their nominations by 1pm in terms of the originally specified election schedule. There are several challenges raised in this petition, which according to us, require consideration. Besides, at least prima facie, we are not too satisfied with the explanation of why an additional opportunity was granted to the UFRs included in the list of 42 UFRs to file their nomination post 1pm on October 30,” the High Court said.
