The Delhi High Court on September 30 dismissed a petition filed by National Students’ Union of India NSUI candidate Vijay Shankar Meena challenging the result of the 2026-27 Delhi University Students’ Union DUSU presidential election.
Meena had approached the High Court after Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad ABVP candidate Yash Dabas was declared the winner of the DUSU presidential election. Dabas secured 24,576 votes, while Meena received 22,523 votes. The winning margin was 2,053 votes. The election result was declared on September 19, 2026.
The petition raised allegations concerning the conduct of the election. Meena alleged that certain university and college officials, including principals, professors and election officials, had campaigned in favour of particular candidates. He argued that such conduct was inconsistent with the requirement of institutional neutrality during student elections.
Meena also referred to the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations and the DUSU Model Code of Conduct in support of his arguments. According to the petition, university and college authorities were required to remain neutral and should not use their institutional positions or administrative machinery to support any particular candidate or organisation. These allegations were made by the petitioner and were not established as findings against the officials by the High Court.
One of the issues raised by Meena concerned photographs that he relied upon to support his allegations of campaigning by university officials. The Delhi High Court examined the material placed before it and found that the photographs were not sufficient to establish the claims.
According to the court proceedings reported by legal news outlet LiveLaw, Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the photographs were undated and lacked necessary particulars. The court also noted that the material did not establish that the individuals shown in the photographs were Delhi University officials or that they were campaigning for any candidate during the election period. The persons allegedly shown in the photographs had also not been made parties to the petition.
The court further observed that the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations could not assist the petitioner in the circumstances because the petition did not establish the relevant date and time of the events referred to in the photographs.
Meena had also raised questions about differences in voter turnout among various colleges. The overall voter turnout in the DUSU election was 40.46 per cent across 52 polling centres. According to his petition, some colleges recorded significantly higher turnout figures, with the petitioner pointing to figures of up to around 80 per cent in certain institutions.
The colleges specifically mentioned in the petition included Aditi Mahavidyalaya, Bhagini Nivedita College, Swami Shraddhanand College, Shivaji College and Motilal Nehru College Morning. Meena argued that the differences in turnout required verification, particularly because the presidential election was decided by a margin of 2,053 votes.
The petitioner had also sought preservation of CCTV footage from polling booths, counting areas and other relevant locations. His request was based on concerns that CCTV footage could be overwritten under normal retention procedures. He had also sought election-related records, including voting and counting information, and requested a recount of votes.
The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Meena sought the quashing of the election result and other directions relating to the preservation and examination of election records.
The Delhi University, during the proceedings, informed the court that Meena had submitted a representation to the university authorities concerning his allegations. The university said that the representation, which had been submitted a few days before the hearing, would be considered as expeditiously as possible.
Taking note of the university’s statement, the Delhi High Court declined to entertain the petition and disposed of the matter. The court therefore did not order the cancellation of the DUSU presidential election result.
The court’s decision means that Yash Dabas remains the declared winner of the DUSU presidential election. Dabas secured 24,576 votes compared with Meena’s 22,523 votes. The difference between the two candidates was 2,053 votes.
The 2026 DUSU election was contested for four central panel positions. ABVP won the president, secretary and joint secretary posts, while independent candidate Deepanshu Shokeen won the vice-president position. Shokeen received 30,615 votes. ABVP candidate Riya Chhawdi won the secretary position with 21,650 votes, while Lakshay Raj Singh won the joint secretary post with 16,615 votes.
The presidential contest had remained closely fought during the counting process. According to The Indian Express, Meena had held narrow leads during some rounds of counting before Dabas moved ahead in the later rounds and ultimately secured the presidency with 24,576 votes.
The latest High Court proceedings concern the legal challenge filed after the election result. The allegations made by Meena regarding electoral irregularities, campaigning by officials and differences in voter turnout remain allegations unless established through the appropriate proceedings. The court’s dismissal of the petition was based on the material and circumstances before it and did not amount to a judicial finding that the alleged campaigning had occurred.
The case highlights the legal issues that can arise when candidates challenge university election results and raise questions about institutional neutrality, voting patterns and election records. For the present, the DUSU presidential result remains unchanged, with Yash Dabas continuing as the declared president-elect following the September 19 election.
