Will University Improvement Follow the Abolition of Partisan Student Organizations?

According to point 86 of the government’s approved 100-point reform agenda, the structures of partisan student organizations are to be removed, and within 90 days, a Student Council or Voice of Students body is to be formed. This move aims to halt partisan interference in education, establish genuine student representation, and improve the declining quality of education. The debate on university reform appears centered around whether student organizations should be retained or abolished.

However, the core issue in university reform is not the existence of student organizations, but concerns related to the university’s structure, administrative autonomy, representation systems, and constitutionally guaranteed rights. It must be clearly stated that ending partisan intervention within universities is a shared and justified consensus.

Universities should not become centers for political recruitment. Nevertheless, blaming the decline of universities solely on affiliated student unions or organizations is only a partial truth. Limiting the university reform debate exclusively to abolishing student organizations risks diverting attention from the fundamental structural issues.

In recent years, groups such as the Nepal Students’ Union and other organizations have engaged in self-evaluation regarding their structure, roles, and partisan connections, proposing operational autonomy, accountability, and institutional reforms. The idea of student organizations becoming independent, policy-driven entities rather than party-controlled structures is gaining ground. This indicates that student organizations themselves support reform.

Permanent Structure of Universities: Students or Administration?

A key structural question in university reform is: who constitutes the permanent structure of the university? Students are not a permanent fixture; they typically remain enrolled for four to six years.

With the semester system’s implementation, repeated enrollment in the same faculty is no longer common. The practice of students staying on campus for long periods to engage in politics or contest student union elections has effectively ended. Meanwhile, university staff, professors, and administrative members can remain for 25–30 years or more.

The permanent elements shaping the university’s administrative culture, policies, decision-making, appointments, academic calendar, and institutional character are the staff, faculty, and administration—not the students.

Therefore, the question arises: if there are problems within universities, is the cause the temporary structure (students) or the permanent administrative structure (administration, faculty, staff)? Without clarity or understanding of real connections, policy interventions risk lacking legitimacy.

In Nepal’s universities and campuses, partisan student organizations are not the only active groups; associations of teachers, employees, professors, and various professional, cultural, literary, community, academic, and ideological groups also operate. Although many do not have direct political party affiliations, they are generally based on certain ideologies and principles.

In a democratic society, it is neither possible nor necessary to completely separate thought, organization, and debate. Hence, the assumption that universities will improve solely by abolishing partisan student organizations is neither policy-wise nor administratively rational.

Reality of the Student Union Election System

The central question in university reform is whether we want to improve the university itself or just remove a particular structure. The answer will determine the direction of reform and must be grounded in the constitution, law, and democratic values.

The university student union election system is not entirely under party control, a fact policymakers must acknowledge. Candidates for the student union must be under 28 years old. Both party-affiliated and independent groups are allowed to participate in elections.

Students vote not by party symbols but directly for candidates in the majoritarian system or for organizations and independent groups proportionally. Therefore, the election system is mixed and not wholly controlled by political parties.

According to university acts and regulations, matters concerning the student union’s tenure remain valid until it expires or a new council is installed, following legal principles.

The principle of rule of law mandates adherence to legal structures and processes. Ending an elected representative’s mandate prematurely violates democratic processes. Nepal’s Supreme Court has recognized this principle in various cases.

Any policy issued without observing these principles exceeds jurisdiction and is invalid under the principle of lack of competence.

The Issue of Banning Student Organizations

The Constitution of Nepal 2015 (2072) guarantees freedom of thought and expression, peaceful assembly, and freedom to form associations under Articles 17 and 18, ensuring equal protection without discrimination. Article 46 affirms the right to constitutional remedies, allowing citizens to file writ petitions in the Supreme Court.

As universities are public institutions, these fundamental rights fully apply. Any restrictions on forming associations and expressing ideas within university campuses would raise constitutional questions.

Nepal is also a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Articles 19 of both UDHR and ICCPR guarantee freedom of expression; Articles 20 UDHR and 22 ICCPR protect the freedom to form associations; and Article 21 ICCPR safeguards the right to peaceful assembly.

Legitimacy of Student Councils

Currently, student councils in Nepal often operate under significant influence from educational institution administrations. They are not always formed democratically or independently, as members are often appointed or selected within limited frameworks by the administration.

This limits students’ ability to independently organize, freely express their ideas, and mobilize for their rights. Such councils usually focus on organizing events, formal activities, and advising administration, weakening genuine student representation and meaningful participation.

If such structures are formed, they do not represent genuine student representation but merely serve as administrative committees. From a legal standpoint, calling this student representation contradicts democratic values, as essential elements like elections, autonomy, and accountability are lacking.

People cannot be without ideas, and student representatives necessarily represent ideas, policies, perspectives, and programs. Therefore, fully non-political student representation is unattainable. The key issue is not removing politics but increasing accountability.

University reform is not simply about whether student organizations remain or are abolished. The three critical questions are: how to ensure genuine, constitutional student representation; how to legally shield universities from political interference; and how to make university administration autonomous, transparent, and accountable.

Universities should not become political recruitment centers, but having no student representation is also undesirable. The constitutional guarantee of organizational freedom cannot be invalidated by administrative orders. The solution lies not in bans but in institutional reforms, legal autonomy, accountability, and improved democratic representation systems grounded in rule of law.

Ultimately, the fundamental question of university reform is whether we seek to improve universities or merely eliminate a structure. The answer will chart the true path of reform and must be tested against constitutional, legal, and democratic standards.

(Sejwal Tribhuvan, spokesperson of Nepal Students’ Union, is pursuing a PhD in Law at Tribhuvan University.)