While dismissing the plea, the Delhi High Court said it was ‘evident that the COVID-19 pandemic could have created educational gaps for many students, causing them to exceed the prior age limits for election eligibility’. The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea against a Delhi University (DU) notice relaxing the age criteria for eligibility in participating in the Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) elections for the academic year 2023-24. The PIL, moved by an alumnus of the varsity, had challenged the August 27 notice that extended the upper age limit for undergraduate students from 22 years to 25 years, and for postgraduate students, from 25 years to 28 years. The elections are scheduled to be held on September 22. A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula in its September 15 order observed, “According to the notice issued by the chief election officer of DU on 27th August, 2023, a one-time age relaxation has been granted for candidates participating in the DUSU elections. This modification arises in a unique context, as the elections are being held after a hiatus of three years due to the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The University, in fact, received numerous appeals from various student bodies requesting a relaxation of the existing age limits.” The bench observed that in view of “extraordinary circumstances”, DU’s Executive Council resolved to adjust the maximum age limit for undergraduate and postgraduate students contesting the DUSU elections for the academic year 2023-24 to 25 years and 28 years, respectively. “It is evident that the COVID-19 pandemic could have created educational gaps for many students, causing them to exceed the prior age limits for election eligibility. The court finds this rationale, invoked by DU’s Executive Council, to be sound and well-reasoned. Given these circumstances, we discern no legitimate grounds warranting judicial intervention in this matter,” the high court said, dismissing the plea. The high court said that the present case pertained to DU’s exercise of its discretion to permit a “broader segment of the student body” to participate in the elections. The bench said that age relaxation serves as an “inclusive measure, enacted in response to the exceptional circumstances” precipitated by the pandemic, “enabling a greater number of students to engage in the democratic process”. The high court also said that it did not find any public interest in the matter which would warrant granting of reliefs sought in the PIL. “To label this petition as a PIL is an abuse of the process of law. The key issue under scrutiny, the relaxation of age limits for election candidates, does not inherently pose any detriment to public interest or the democratic election process. The petitioner posits a theory that extending the age limit will give rise to an escalation in incidents of violence and hooliganism,” the high court said, adding that this claim lacked any “empirical evidence or a reasoned basis” to establish a link between the age relaxation and the adverse outcomes projected.