The Delhi High Court on Thursday disposed of a petition filed by two activists of the All India Students' Association (AISA), Ananya Raturi and Akshat Shikhar, challenging a directive issued by Delhi University that mandated candidates contesting the Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) elections to submit an indemnity affidavit and furnish a surety bond of Rs. 1 lakh bearing the signature of their parents.
The petitioners argued that the requirement imposed an undue burden on adult students by making their eligibility to contest the polls dependent on parental consent and financial liability, particularly affecting those who are financially independent or whose parents or guardians are unwilling or unable to assume such responsibility.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, presiding over the matter, observed that while the condition of furnishing a Rs. 1 lakh surety bond was fair and reasonable in its objective, it was unnecessarily restrictive in limiting the surety to parents alone. The Court clarified that the bond could be furnished by any person, including a guardian, who is in a position to pay the specified amount and stand as surety for the candidate.
During the hearing, the Court orally remarked that the election period often results in chaotic conditions, with the state of college walls becoming pitiable after the polls. It emphasized that the purpose of the surety bond was not to penalize students but to ensure that a solvent person, capable of bearing the financial liability, would be available to compensate for any damage to university property, including walls, in case the candidate violated the terms of the undertaking or the Lyngdoh guidelines.
Counsel appearing for Delhi University submitted that the impugned condition was introduced solely to prevent damage to college property, which historically falls into disarray after every election. The surety bond, they argued, served the limited purpose of ensuring that a financially capable individual would be available to pay Rs. 1 lakh if the candidate was found guilty of violating the undertaking or relevant guidelines, notifications, or judgments.
The Court noted that the petitioners’ challenge also extended to a parallel requirement demanding that candidates declare their parents’ awareness of their candidature. However, the primary relief sought centered on the surety bond mandate, which the petitioners contended infringed upon the autonomy of adult students by tethering their electoral participation to parental involvement.
Justice Singh further remarked during the proceedings that petitioners’ counsel should not insist on parents furnishing the bond, but rather allow any person with the financial means to do so to stand as surety. The Court ultimately disposed of the plea after clarifying that the surety bond need not be executed exclusively by parents and could be furnished by any individual, including a guardian, possessing the capacity to pay Rs. 1 lakh.
The disposition aligns with a previous observation by a coordinate bench of the Delhi High Court, which had held that candidates contesting the 2025 DUSU elections were not required to deposit the Rs. 1 lakh bond. The Court’s current ruling, however, does not do away with the bond requirement itself but modifies the scope of who may fulfill it, thereby addressing concerns about undue parental dependence while preserving the university’s interest in safeguarding its property during the electoral process.