Cause–Effect Analysis:\nI) Student union elections in universities/colleges across the country are a messy affair.\nII) The Supreme Court directed implementation of Lyngdoh Committee recommendations for student body elections in higher education institutions.

Introduction / Context:
The pair connects disorderly student elections (I) with a judicial directive to implement reform guidelines (II). The Lyngdoh Committee was constituted to recommend norms to reduce malpractices and violence in campus elections; thus II naturally follows from the problem identified in I.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I) Widespread messiness in student union elections.
• II) Supreme Court orders implementation of specific recommendations (Lyngdoh) for student elections.
• Implicit: Judicial/committee interventions respond to systemic problems.

Concept / Approach:
Look for a remedial action (policy/judicial order) that addresses the diagnosed problem. If II is a targeted remedy matching I’s domain, I is the cause (problem), II is the effect (corrective order).

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify I as a systemic issue: “messy affair” implies malpractice, disorder, or violence.2) II explicitly mandates implementing election norms—an institutional response.3) Therefore, the presence of I plausibly triggers II; the reverse (II causing I) is illogical.

Verification / Alternative check:
Were elections already clean, II would be unnecessary. The order (II) is an effect flowing from the problem (I).

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
(b) reverses causality; (c) and (d) deny the visible linkage; (e) is redundant.

Common Pitfalls:
Overlooking policy-remedy structure; misreading court directions as independent of the problem context.

Final Answer:
Statement I is the cause and Statement II is its effect.