Court Dismisses Petition as Malicious, Upholds Disqualification for Candidates with Pending Criminal Cases.

The HC dismissed the writ petition, ruling it devoid of merit and filed with malicious intent. The petitioner, challenging an order and legal opinion, was ordered to pay exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000. The court upheld the disqualification of candidates with pending criminal cases from elections, referencing the University of Kerala judgment. Costs were allocated to the university's counsel and legal services, addressing the humiliation faced and reinforcing the sanctity of privileged communication between lawyer and client.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the order dated 07/12/06 passed by respondent No. 3 and the legal advice/order dated 07/12/06 tendered by respondent No. 6 (7).
2. Eligibility of a candidate with pending criminal cases to contest the Students' Union election.
3. Interpretation of paragraph 6.5.7 of the judgment in the case of University of Kerala v. Council, Principals' Colleges, Kerala (2006) 8 S.C.C. 304.
4. Challenge to the legal opinion given by the lawyer and its implications.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The writ petition sought to quash the order dated 07/12/06 passed by respondent No. 3 and the legal advice/order dated 07/12/06 tendered by respondent No. 6 (7). The court examined the prayers in the petition and the grounds for challenging the said orders.

Issue 2:
The case revolved around the eligibility of a candidate, petitioner No. 1, with pending criminal cases to contest the Students' Union election. The court considered the petitioner's argument that since he had not been convicted by any court of law, he should be allowed to participate in the election despite facing criminal charges.

Issue 3:
The interpretation of paragraph 6.5.7 of the judgment in the University of Kerala case was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The court referred to previous judgments and the Lyngdoh Committee's recommendations to determine that a candidate facing criminal trial would be disqualified from participating in the election, even if not yet convicted.

Issue 4:
The court addressed the challenge to the legal opinion given by the lawyer and its implications. It emphasized the importance of the privileged communication between a lawyer and client, highlighting that challenging a legal opinion itself was not permissible. The court condemned the petitioner's actions as an attempt to scandalize the university and the lawyer.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition with exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000, emphasizing that it was devoid of merit and filed with malicious intent. The costs were to be deposited within a specified time frame, with a portion allocated to the university's counsel for facing humiliation in court and mental agony, and the remainder to legal services and mediation centers.

---