The Murder of an Election: How a Student Community Betrayed the Constitutional Spirit of Two Nations

Introduction: Democracy on Trial at Sharda University

Within the vibrant, multicultural ecosystem of Sharda University, the Nepali Community has long served as a cultural embassy, a home away from home, and a training ground for the civic values that bind its members. It is a space where students celebrate their shared heritage while navigating their educational journeys in India. However, this community now finds itself at a precipitous crossroads. A recently instituted rule, mandating a full year of prior community service as a prerequisite for presidential eligibility, has fractured the student body. What began as a principled objection to an unfair and exclusionary policy has culminated in the outright cancellation of a democratic election and the unilateral appointment of a new president. This sequence of events is not a mere administrative misstep or a minor internal disagreement. It represents a profound and deliberate betrayal of the democratic ethos that forms the very bedrock of both the Nepali and Indian nations. The actions taken by the community's leadership are not simply a flawed electoral process; they are, in effect, the murder of an election.

This report will establish, with exhaustive detail and rigorous analysis, that the imposition of the one-year service requirement and the subsequent appointment of a President are fundamentally illegitimate. The analysis will demonstrate that these actions are a direct affront to the constitutional promises of equality and freedom of association that are the cornerstones of both Nepali and Indian jurisprudence. The report will first dissect the exclusionary rule through the lens of constitutional law, proving its discriminatory and arbitrary nature. It will then explore how the denial of a free and fair election hollows out the fundamental right to form an association, rendering it meaningless. The third section will systematically dismantle the primary justification for the rule—that "experience is crucial"—exposing it as a fallacious argument that promotes stagnation, masks favoritism, and subverts the educational mission of a student organization. Finally, the report will synthesize these arguments to frame the presidential appointment as a premeditated coup in miniature, an illegitimate seizure of power that lacks any democratic mandate. This is a call to awaken the constitutional conscience of a community and to reclaim the democratic space that has been so brazenly usurped.

Section 1: The Constitutional Promise of Equality vs. The Reality of Exclusion

The new rule requiring one year of community service to be eligible for the President's position is, at its core, an act of discrimination. It erects an artificial and unjustifiable barrier to participation, creating a privileged class of "eligible" insiders while disenfranchising the majority of the community's members. This act of exclusion stands in stark violation of the foundational principles of equality that are meticulously enshrined in the constitutions of both Nepal and India. These documents are not mere legal texts; they are the moral and political charters of their respective nations, born from historic struggles against autocratic and feudal systems. To ignore their spirit is to ignore the very identity of the people they represent.

Subsection 1.1: The Bedrock of Equality in the Constitution of Nepal

The Constitution of Nepal is a document forged in the crucible of popular movements aimed at creating a just, equitable, and inclusive society. Its Preamble is a powerful declaration of intent, explicitly resolving to end "all forms of discriminations and oppression created by the feudalistic, autocratic, centralized, unitary system of governance" and to build an "egalitarian society founded on the proportional inclusive and participatory principles".¹ This is the guiding light of the entire constitutional framework. The goal is not merely to tolerate diversity but to actively protect and promote "unity in diversity" by eliminating discrimination based on class, caste, region, language, or any other arbitrary distinction.² A student community that bears the name "Nepali" has a profound responsibility to reflect these national aspirations.

This overarching spirit is given concrete legal force through the chapter on Fundamental Rights. Article 18, the "Right to equality," is the central pillar of this commitment, guaranteeing equal treatment for all citizens.³ While this article provides the general principle, Article 24, the "Right against untouchability and discrimination," offers a powerful analogy for the situation at hand. Article 24(1) states, "No person shall be subjected to any form of...discrimination in any private and public places on grounds of his or her origin, caste, tribe, community, profession, occupation or physical condition".⁵ The rule requiring one year of service effectively creates a new, artificial "community" or class of individuals—those who have previously served in some capacity—and discriminates against all others based on this manufactured status. It prevents a vast majority of members from aspiring to the highest office based not on their merit, ideas, or capabilities, but on a condition that is not universally accessible or necessarily relevant to leadership potential.

Furthermore, Article 24(3) prohibits any act "purporting to demonstrate any person or community as superior or inferior" or "justifying social discrimination".⁵ The one-year service rule does precisely this: it implicitly frames the "experienced" as superior and more worthy of leadership, thereby justifying the social discrimination of excluding newcomers. This contravenes the constitution's explicit goal of ending all forms of oppression and creating an egalitarian society.¹ Nepal's commitment to these principles is not merely a domestic affair; it is a matter of international standing, with the government repeatedly affirming its dedication to "promoting equality amongst all and eliminating all forms of discrimination" as a cornerstone of development and social equity.⁶ For a student body representing Nepal abroad to enact a rule so clearly at odds with this national and international commitment is a profound contradiction.

The rule is not just a violation of specific articles; it represents the creation of an "un-constitutional culture" within the student body. The constitutions of both Nepal and India are living documents that embody national values forged through struggles against autocracy and inequality.¹ They are intended to cultivate a society based on participation and fairness. A student community, particularly one representing a national identity on foreign soil, should function as a microcosm of these constitutional values, serving as a practical training ground for democratic citizenship. The introduction of an arbitrary, exclusionary rule does the exact opposite. It establishes a hierarchy, promotes an elitist in-group, and subverts the fundamental principle of equal opportunity. The true damage, therefore, extends beyond the individuals it immediately excludes. It corrodes the collective political and social education of the entire community by normalizing a form of governance that is fundamentally alien to the democratic spirit of the homelands these students represent.

Subsection 1.2: The Doctrine of Equality and Non-Arbitrariness in the Indian Constitution

The legal framework of the host nation, India, provides even more powerful analytical tools to dismantle the legitimacy of the exclusionary rule. The Indian Constitution's commitment to equality is absolute and forms part of its "basic structure." Article 14 commands that "The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India".⁹ While a student union may not be "The State" in a literal sense, any organization operating within an Indian university is expected to adhere to these foundational constitutional principles. Article 16 further guarantees "equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State".¹⁰ By analogy, this principle of equal opportunity should apply to any position of office within a significant community organization that operates with the university's sanction. The rule in question is a direct assault on this principle.

To assess the constitutionality of rules that create classifications, the Indian Supreme Court has developed crucial legal tests. In the landmark case of Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Justice S R Tendolkar, the court established the "Test of Reasonable Classification." This test permits a classification between groups of people only if two conditions are met: first, the classification must be based on an "intelligible differentia" that clearly distinguishes the groups, and second, this differentia must have a "rational relation" or nexus to the objective the rule seeks to achieve.¹² The one-year service rule fails this test spectacularly. While the "intelligible differentia" is clear (one year of service versus less than one year), there is no demonstrable rational nexus between this specific duration of service and the objective of securing competent leadership. Is a person with 11 months of service inherently unqualified? Is a person with 13 months of service inherently qualified? The criterion is rigid, arbitrary, and bears no necessary relationship to a candidate's actual skills, vision, or ability to lead.

The most potent weapon against the rule, however, comes from the "Doctrine of Arbitrariness," articulated by the Indian Supreme Court in E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu. In this seminal judgment, the court declared that "Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions... From the positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies... Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14".¹² The one-year service rule is the very definition of arbitrary. It is not based on a fair assessment of merit, a competitive evaluation of ideas, or a transparent measure of skill. Instead, it imposes a single, restrictive, and artificial condition that inherently favors a small clique of insiders. It is a form of class legislation, forbidden by the constitution, that creates an unreasonable barrier to entry for the vast majority of members. By being arbitrary, the rule is inherently unequal and thus stands condemned by the core principles of the Indian Constitution.

Table 1: Constitutional Principles of Democratic Governance at a Glance

Section 2: The Right to Associate, The Power to Choose

The right to form an association is a cornerstone of any free and democratic society. It allows individuals to come together to pursue common interests, express collective views, and organize for shared goals. However, this right is rendered hollow and meaningless if the members of that association are stripped of their most fundamental power: the power to choose their own leaders through free, fair, and periodic elections. The actions of the Nepali Community leadership—first engineering an exclusionary rule and then bypassing an election altogether—have transformed a supposedly democratic association into a self-perpetuating oligarchy, violating the spirit of association guaranteed by the constitutions of both Nepal and India.

Subsection 2.1: Freedom of Association and Democratic Process in Nepal

The Constitution of Nepal is unequivocal in its support for democratic organization. Article 17(2) explicitly guarantees every citizen the freedom "(c) to form political party" and "(d) freedom to form unions and associations".¹ This right is not granted in a vacuum. It exists within a broader constitutional context that lionizes democratic processes. The Preamble celebrates "peoples' competitive multi-party democratic governance system, civil liberty, fundamental rights, human rights, adult franchise, periodic elections, complete press freedom and an independent, impartial and competent judiciary" as the core values of the nation.¹ The constitution repeatedly emphasizes the right of the people to "take part in a free and fair election... in an environment without fear".⁴

The critical connection that must be drawn is between the right to form an association and the right to govern it democratically. The freedom to associate is not merely the freedom to sign up and pay dues; it is the freedom to participate in the life of the association. The ultimate expression of this participation is the act of electing leadership. An association where leaders are appointed by an elite few, or where elections are structured to exclude the majority of members from even contesting, is not a "free" association in the spirit of the Nepali Constitution. It is a controlled entity, an instrument of the few rather than a voice of the many. The right to form a union or association, as protected by Article 17, implicitly includes the right for that body to be governed by democratic norms, chief among them being periodic and competitive elections.¹⁸ To deny this is to gut the right of its essential meaning, leaving only an empty shell.

Subsection 2.2: The Essence of Association and Election in India

Similarly, the Indian Constitution provides robust protection for the freedom of association. Article 19(1)(c) guarantees all citizens the fundamental right "to form associations or unions".¹⁰ The Indian judiciary has affirmed that this right is not merely procedural. In the case of

Damyanti v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the members of an association "to continue the association with its composition as voluntarily agreed upon by the persons forming the association".¹³ This principle logically extends to the right of members to determine their own leadership through a process of their choosing. If an external body cannot impose a leadership structure, then an internal clique cannot do so either without violating the fundamental right of the members to freely associate and determine their own governance.

While the "right to vote" in India is classified as a constitutional or legal right under Article 326 rather than a fundamental right, the entire edifice of Indian democracy rests upon the principle of free and fair elections.¹⁶ The Constitution dedicates an entire section, Part XV, to the mechanics of elections, and the Supreme Court has consistently acted to strengthen the hands of the Election Commission to ensure their fairness.¹⁷ The appointment of a leader without an election is a complete and shocking departure from this foundational democratic norm. It is an act so alien to the political culture of India that it would be unthinkable in any public body. For a student organization operating on Indian soil to adopt such an autocratic practice is an affront to the democratic values of its host nation. The act of appointing a president confirms the worst fears about the exclusionary rule: it was never about "experience," but about circumventing the will of the members.

When students join a community organization, they do so under an implicit social contract, one based on the democratic norms of their home countries. This contract assumes a right to participate and to have a voice in the community's governance, a right epitomized by the act of voting.¹ The leadership, by accepting their roles, implicitly agrees to act as fiduciaries of this trust, representing the members' interests. By canceling an election and appointing a leader, the leadership unilaterally shatters this contract. They cease to be a representative body and transform into a self-appointed authority. This action fundamentally alters the nature of the organization. It is no longer a "community" in the democratic sense, but a hierarchy where members are subjects rather than citizens. This breach of trust erodes the very legitimacy of the leadership and undermines the purpose of the association, which is to represent its members, not to rule over them.²¹

Subsection 2.3: The Standard of Care: Student Union Elections in Practice

To understand just how far the Nepali Community's leadership has strayed from acceptable norms, one need only look at the established best practices for student union governance in India. The ordinance governing student union elections in Chhattisgarh, for example, provides a detailed and reasonable framework that can serve as a benchmark.²² This ordinance explicitly states that one of the primary aims of a student union is "to promote and reinforce the democratic values and principles amongst the students and to educate them about their duties and rights in democracy".²² This stands in stark contrast to the Nepali Community's actions, which have taught a lesson in exclusion and autocracy.

The contrast becomes even more glaring when examining the specific rules. The Indian ordinance lays out a clear and objective set of disqualification criteria for candidates. A student can be deemed ineligible if they have been involved in ragging, have criminal proceedings pending, have been punished for using unfair means in exams, or have failed to meet academic progress standards.²² These are objective, verifiable criteria related to a student's conduct and academic standing. They are fair and apply equally to all. Nowhere in this comprehensive document is there a subjective, arbitrary requirement like "one year of service." The ordinance mandates elections for the Students' Council, with office bearers elected by the council members themselves, ensuring a chain of democratic legitimacy.²² The process is transparent, with clear timelines for nomination, scrutiny, and polling.

By comparing the Nepali Community's new rule and subsequent appointment to this established standard of care, the deficiency is laid bare. The community's leadership has not just violated the high-minded spirit of two national constitutions; it has failed to meet even the most basic, practical standards of fair and democratic student governance. The ordinance shows what is reasonable and possible: a system that promotes democratic values, uses objective criteria for eligibility, and guarantees an electoral process. The Nepali Community's system does the opposite on every single count, proving that its process is not just flawed, but a deliberate and flagrant deviation from established democratic practice.

Section 3: The Tyranny of Experience: A Defense of Stagnation, Not Progress

The primary defense offered for the exclusionary one-year service rule is the assertion that "experience is crucial for understanding the community's operations and avoiding mistakes." On its surface, this argument appears reasonable, appealing to common-sense notions of prudence and competence. However, a deeper analysis reveals this justification to be a dangerously flawed and intellectually lazy defense for a policy that ultimately serves to entrench power, stifle innovation, and promote a weak and ineffective model of leadership. It is a classic argument for stagnation, not progress, and it serves as a convenient mask for favoritism and the consolidation of an insider's club.

Subsection 3.1: Deconstructing the "Experience" Argument: Institutional Knowledge vs. Stagnation

The argument for the rule rests on the perceived value of "institutional knowledge"—the collective, often intangible, insights and expertise that employees or members accumulate over time about an organization's culture, processes, and history.²³ Proponents would argue that a leader with this knowledge can navigate challenges more effectively and make more informed decisions, thus avoiding costly errors.²⁵ They believe that a new leader, without this background, is more likely to make mistakes and disrupt the smooth functioning of the community.²⁶

This perspective, however, fundamentally misunderstands the nature of both leadership and organizational health. While institutional knowledge has its place, mandating it as a rigid prerequisite for leadership is profoundly counter-productive. Relying solely on on-the-job experience without new perspectives can lead to the reinforcement of bad habits, the perpetuation of inefficient processes, and a dangerous resistance to necessary change.²⁷ An organization that only ever promotes from within a narrow pool of "experienced" individuals risks becoming an echo chamber, where outdated assumptions are never challenged and innovation is suffocated. As former Intel CEO Andy Grove argued, to navigate profound change, existing management must adopt an "outsider's intellectual objectivity," unfettered by emotional attachment to the past.²⁸ The one-year rule actively prevents this by filtering out the very outsiders who could provide that critical perspective.

History and business are replete with examples of successful "outsider" leaders who brought transformative change precisely because they were not beholden to the institutional orthodoxies of the past. Political leaders like Margaret Thatcher and Abraham Lincoln successfully cast themselves as outsiders to challenge the established order.²⁹ In the business world, CEOs like Henry Singleton of Teledyne and Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway achieved extraordinary success by thinking like investors and capital allocators, not as traditional managers steeped in the operational minutiae of their many businesses.³¹ Founders like Sara Blakely (Spanx) and Steve Jobs (Apple) had no prior industry experience but succeeded through vision and a fresh approach.³² These cases demonstrate that a fresh perspective is often more valuable than accumulated experience, especially when an organization needs to adapt and grow. The most valuable leadership experiences are often those that push a person out of their comfort zone, not those that simply repeat established routines.³³ The rule, therefore, does not guarantee good leadership; it guarantees the perpetuation of the status quo, for better or worse.

Subsection 3.2: Transactional vs. Transformational Leadership: Choosing the Right Model

The debate over the "experience" rule is, at its heart, a debate about the kind of leadership the community wishes to cultivate. The rule, by its very design, selects for and promotes a transactional model of leadership. Transactional leaders focus on managing existing systems and processes. They operate on a system of exchanges—rewards for performance and punishments for failure—and their primary goal is to ensure stability, clarify roles, and maintain the current order.³⁴ This style is characterized by a focus on control, clear chains of command, and managing by exception (intervening only when something goes wrong). The argument that a leader needs one year of experience to "understand operations" and "avoid mistakes" is a textbook description of the transactional mindset. It prioritizes the smooth execution of existing tasks over the creation of a new vision.

A dynamic and evolving student community, however, does not merely need a manager; it needs a leader. It requires a transformational leadership model. Transformational leaders do not just manage; they inspire. They articulate a compelling vision for the future, motivate their followers to look beyond their immediate self-interest for the good of the group, encourage creativity and innovation, and foster the personal and professional growth of each member.³⁷ They operate on principles of charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.³⁴ Research consistently shows that transformational leadership leads to higher productivity, greater satisfaction, and a stronger sense of collective purpose among followers.³⁴

The one-year service rule acts as a filter that actively blocks potential transformational leaders. A newcomer with a bold new vision for the community—a new event, a new mentorship program, a new way of engaging with the university—is deemed ineligible. A charismatic individual who can inspire and motivate a broad base of students is barred from running. The rule ensures that the only people who can lead are those who have already been socialized into the existing system, making them less likely to challenge it. It prioritizes the transactional skill of "knowing how things are done" over the transformational quality of "imagining how things could be better." For a student organization, whose very purpose should be growth and development, this is a catastrophic choice.

The purpose of a student organization within a university is fundamentally educational. It should be a laboratory for developing the skills and character of its members. A key part of this development is providing opportunities for practical experience in leadership, collaboration, and governance.²¹ The modern understanding of leadership is that leaders are overwhelmingly "made, not born," and they are made through experience, training, and overcoming challenges.³³ The one-year service rule is a profoundly anti-educational tool because it creates a bottleneck. It restricts the most valuable leadership learning opportunities to a tiny, pre-selected group, effectively telling the majority of members that their role is to be passive followers, not active participants or future leaders. This subverts the educational mission of the university itself. Instead of being an incubator that cultivates a wide and diverse pool of future leaders, the community becomes a gatekeeper that stifles talent, hoards opportunity, and reinforces a rigid, unproductive hierarchy. This is a perversion of its function within an academic institution.

Subsection 3.3: The Corrosive Impact of Favoritism

Ultimately, the "experience" argument is a flimsy veil for a much more toxic dynamic: favoritism. The rule is a textbook mechanism for creating an in-group (those who have served and are thus "eligible") and an out-group (everyone else). This is not about competence; it is about control. It allows the existing leadership clique to groom its own successors, ensuring that power remains within a closed circle of friends and allies.

The consequences of favoritism in any organization are devastating and well-documented. It is a poison that corrodes the foundations of trust and meritocracy. When members perceive that opportunities and positions are not based on merit but on personal connections, their morale plummets.⁴⁰ Motivation withers, as there is no incentive to contribute ideas or work hard if one is not part of the favored circle. Team dynamics are impaired, breeding resentment and exclusion rather than collaboration. Innovation is stifled, as new ideas from the out-group are ignored or dismissed.⁴⁰

Most importantly, favoritism destroys the credibility of the leadership. When leaders are seen to be making decisions based on personal bias rather than objective criteria, they lose all moral authority.⁴⁰ The appointment of a new president without an election is the final, undeniable proof of this dynamic. It confirms every suspicion that the rule was never about ensuring competent leadership, but about ensuring a specific, favored individual would take power. This single act of blatant favoritism invalidates any claim the leadership might have to fairness or integrity, and it reveals the "experience" argument for what it truly is: a self-serving justification for an undemocratic power grab.

Table 2: Deconstructing the "Experience is Crucial" Justification

Section 4: The Appointment: A Coup in Miniature

The sequence of events within the Nepali Community at Sharda University—the sudden imposition of an exclusionary rule followed by the cancellation of an election and the direct appointment of a President—cannot be viewed as a series of isolated mistakes. It must be analyzed as a single, coherent process. The appointment of the President was not an unfortunate, ad-hoc solution to an unforeseen problem; it was the premeditated and indefensible culmination of an anti-democratic strategy. This final act represents the successful execution of a coup in miniature, a deliberate seizure of power that strips the community of its democratic soul and renders its leadership completely illegitimate.

Subsection 4.1: The Inevitable Outcome

The appointment of the President should not be seen as a surprising development. It was the logical, and likely intended, consequence of the one-year service rule. By creating such a restrictive eligibility criterion, the existing leadership effectively engineered a situation where the pool of "qualified" candidates would be vanishingly small. It is highly probable that the rule was crafted with the knowledge that it would disqualify all but a handful of insiders, perhaps even just one preferred candidate.

This is a classic tactic of authoritarian control: if you cannot win a fair election, you change the rules to ensure there is no fair election to be won. The rule was the primary weapon in the "murder of an election." It incapacitated the democratic body by making genuine competition impossible. Once the field of candidates was artificially narrowed to the point of non-existence, the election itself became a mere formality, an inconvenience to be discarded. The claim that an election was no longer necessary or feasible is a disingenuous excuse. The conditions that made it "unfeasible" were deliberately created by the leadership's own exclusionary policy. Therefore, the appointment was not a reaction to a crisis; it was the final step in a carefully orchestrated plan to bypass the will of the members.

The phrase "murder of election" is not employed as hyperbole but as an accurate diagnosis of a deliberate, two-step act. The first step was to incapacitate the democratic process with the poison of an exclusionary, arbitrary rule that destroyed the level playing field and violated core constitutional principles of equality. The second step was to deliver the final, fatal blow by cancelling the election entirely, thus removing member participation from the equation. The justification for the rule—the need for experience—was demonstrably false and served only to mask the true intent. When a flawed premise leads to an undemocratic outcome, the only logical conclusion is that the entire sequence of events was not aimed at improving the community, but at ensuring a specific, predetermined result. It was a calculated strategy to consolidate power in the hands of an elite clique, effectively killing the democratic process to achieve a political end.

Subsection 4.2: A Complete Betrayal of Trust and Democratic Norms

The act of appointing a leader without an election is a profound betrayal of the trust placed in the leadership by the community's members. Fair elections are the lifeblood of any democratic organization, no matter its size or scope. They are the primary mechanism through which leadership is held accountable and legitimacy is conferred.⁴¹ By unilaterally cancelling the election, the leadership sent a clear and insulting message to its members: your voices do not matter, your choices are irrelevant, and your participation is worthless.

Effective leadership is built on a foundation of trust, which is cultivated through specific, deliberate behaviors. These include open and transparent communication, encouraging involvement, sharing the rationale behind decisions, and demonstrating integrity.⁴² The actions of the community's leadership represent a masterclass in how to destroy trust. Communication was not open but manipulative. Involvement was not encouraged but actively blocked. The rationale for the rule was specious, and the final appointment was the opposite of transparent. This is not just poor leadership; it is a deliberate dismantling of the relationship between the leaders and the led. It replaces a covenant of trust with a dynamic of command and control, fundamentally altering the character of the community for the worse.

Subsection 4.3: The Leader Without a Mandate

The individual who has been appointed as President, regardless of their personal qualities, intentions, or past service, begins their term with an insurmountable deficit: they have no democratic mandate. A mandate is the authority granted by the people to a leader to act on their behalf. It is earned through a competitive process of presenting ideas and winning the consent of the governed in a free and fair election. The appointed President has not earned this. They were not chosen by the members; they were installed by a committee.

This lack of a mandate renders their leadership inherently weak and illegitimate. They do not represent the will of the community; they represent the will of the small group that appointed them. Every decision they make, every action they take, will be shadowed by the undemocratic nature of their ascension to power. They cannot claim to speak for the community because the community was never given a chance to speak. They cannot command the genuine respect and loyalty of the members because their position was not earned through merit or popular support, but through a backroom deal. This creates a deeply unstable and unhealthy dynamic. A leader without a mandate can only rule through the authority of their position, not through the moral force of popular consent. This is the hallmark of an autocracy, not a vibrant student community. The community is left with a figurehead, not a representative—a president in name only.

Conclusion: A Call to Action - Reclaiming Our Democratic Space

The analysis presented in this report leads to an unassailable conclusion: the imposition of a one-year service requirement for presidential eligibility and the subsequent appointment of a President without an election by the Nepali Community at Sharda University are acts that are illegitimate, unconstitutional in spirit, and profoundly anti-democratic. The exclusionary rule violates the foundational principles of equality and non-arbitrariness enshrined in the Constitutions of both Nepal and India. The cancellation of the election hollows out the fundamental right of association, transforming a democratic community into a self-perpetuating oligarchy. The justification for these actions—a supposed need for "experience"—has been exposed as a fallacious argument that promotes a weak, transactional leadership model and serves as a convenient mask for favoritism. The final appointment was not an administrative necessity but a deliberate power grab, the culmination of a successful strategy to murder an election and silence the will of the members.

This is not merely an internal squabble over bylaws. This is a critical moment for the members of the Nepali Community to defend the very constitutional values they carry with them from their homeland. It is a moment to decide whether the community will be a reflection of the democratic, egalitarian, and participatory ideals that both Nepal and India aspire to, or whether it will be an unfortunate caricature of the autocratic and feudal systems those nations have fought to overcome. This is an opportunity to put the principles of the constitution into practice, to demand accountability, and to reclaim the democratic space that has been stolen. The path forward requires courage, unity, and a clear set of non-negotiable demands for reform.

Therefore, the following specific, actionable demands must be presented to the current leadership and the university administration:

1. Immediate Repeal of the Exclusionary Rule: The first and most critical step is to demand the immediate, unconditional, and permanent repeal of the rule requiring one year of community service for presidential eligibility. This rule is the root of the democratic decay and must be excised completely.

2. Nullification of the Appointment and a New, Fair Election: The presidential appointment, lacking any democratic mandate, must be declared null and void. A new election must be scheduled promptly. This election must be open to all regular members of the community in good standing, with eligibility criteria that are fair, objective, and non-discriminatory, ensuring a level playing field for all who wish to serve.

3. Establishment of Democratic Bylaws: To prevent such a crisis from recurring, a formal and binding set of bylaws for the community must be created. This process must be democratic and transparent, led by an independent committee with broad representation from all segments of the student community. These bylaws must explicitly guarantee the core principles of equality, non-discrimination, and the right of all members to vote and stand for office in periodic, free, and fair elections. This new governing document should draw its inspiration directly from the democratic ethos of the Constitutions of Nepal and India and from the established best practices for student union governance, ensuring that the "murder of an election" can never happen again.

Works cited

1. The Constitution of Nepal - ConstitutionNet, accessed August 12, 2025, https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/Constitution-of-Nepal-_English_-with-1st-Amendment_2_0.pdf

2. CONSTITUTION OF NEPAL 2015 - ADB's Law and Policy Reform Program, accessed August 12, 2025, https://lpr.adb.org/sites/default/files/resource/629/nepal-constitution.pdf.pdf

3. THE CONSTITUTION OF NEPAL - ConstitutionNet, accessed August 12, 2025, https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/nepal_constitution_-_official_translaiton_eng_mljpa.pdf

4. The Constitution of Nepal, 2015 - Legislation - South Asian Translaw Database, accessed August 12, 2025, https://translaw.clpr.org.in/legislation/the-constitution-of-nepal-2015-constitution-nepal/

5. Nepal - Global Gender Equality Constitutional Database - UN Women, accessed August 12, 2025, https://constitutions.unwomen.org/en/countries/asia/nepal

6. India 1949 (rev. 2016) Constitution, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/India_2016

7. EP Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu - Case Analysis - Testbook, accessed August 12, 2025, https://testbook.com/landmark-judgements/ep-royappa-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu

8. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - FAOLEX Database | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, accessed August 12, 2025, https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/ind132810.pdf

9. E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Another (1973), accessed August 12, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/e-p-royappa-v-state-tamil-nadu-mala-fide-abuse-discretion/

10. DU announces strict rules for student union elections to prevent defacement, accessed August 12, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/du-announces-strict-rules-for-student-union-elections-to-prevent-defacement/articleshow/123144638.cms

11. RULES AND REGULATIONS TO CONDUCT THE ELECTIONS OF THE STUDENT'S UNION OF GMCH, accessed August 12, 2025, https://gmchassam.gov.in/downloads/Rules&Regulations.pdf

12. Internal hiring or external recruitment? - IZA World of Labor, accessed August 12, 2025, https://wol.iza.org/articles/internal-hiring-or-external-recruitment/long

13. Eight advantages and disadvantages of internal recruitment | Workable, accessed August 12, 2025, https://resources.workable.com/stories-and-insights/advantages-disadvantages-of-internal-recruitment

14. Transformational and Transactional Leadership: Association With Attitudes Toward Evidence-Based Practice - PMC, accessed August 12, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1876730/

15. Transformational and Transactional Leadership | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/transformational-and-transactional-leadership