“I’m innocent”, the EC teased as the writer started the recording, joking that this was the first time they had been consensually recorded. Between the banter and the overlapping laughter, it was clear that the team’s strongest asset was not just a strong grasp of the constitution but the camaraderie that held them together under election pressure.
With campus polls approaching, the English Press Club sat down with the Election Commission to understand what goes on behind the elections—and what happens when the rulebook does not quite have an answer.
The Students’ Union elections have been a part of campus life since around the 1970s, with the Election Commission, formally established in the early 1990s, overseeing them ever since. The election process as it exists today has remained virtually unchanged since the early 2000s, with only minor changes to the timeline.
The election process begins with the declaration of the Grey Period (July 25 to August 25). An essential ‘cool-down period’, it requires the candidates to stop campaigning and bars them from taking on any new initiatives. The candidates are also mandated to withdraw their names from all previous associations and initiatives. The aim is simple: to create a level playing field before campaigning begins. The Grey Period was followed by campaigning from August 25 to September 5, the Silence Period on September 5, and finally, polling on September 6.
Eligibility varies for each post—any resident of a hostel can run for Hostel Representative (HRep), and any day scholar can run for Day Scholar Representative (DRep). However, contenders for the post of General Secretary must be in the third year, and for the post of President, in the third or fourth year. They must be on campus for their entire tenure. The EC emphasised that they rarely reject a candidate outright. If a manifesto contains a point that violates institute rules or falls outside the purview of the post, the commission simply asks the candidate to revise and resubmit it.
“We do not want unserious candidates contesting; meme manifestos or joke manifestos are something we cannot accept. These are pretty outrageous,” they remarked. As long as candidates demonstrate a genuine willingness to contest, the EC welcomes them.
Much of the EC’s work happens before anyone steps into a polling booth. From issuing Grey Period guidelines and election timelines to collecting nominations, disclosures and campaigner details, the Commission manages the election from start to finish. Every piece of information is vetted before it reaches the GBM. The Information Seminar, held on August 30 this year, gave the candidates their first formal platform to present their manifestos and motivations. It allowed them to question one another and allowed the GBM to raise inquiries. The Auditorium Debate, better known as the ‘AudiRag’, will shift control to the EC and a confidential panel of fourth-year students, who will put the candidates on the spot about their manifestos and past initiatives. The Common Room Debate offers a ‘miniature mix’ of both, giving candidates a chance to introduce themselves and their manifestos while allowing the GBM to ask questions.
On polling day, the EC coordinates with the SSMS EC, SFC, hostel wardens and staff to ensure that volunteers are present at every polling booth. Their job is largely to verify signatures, prevent duplicate voting, and maintain decorum. Once polling concludes, votes are counted in the presence of wardens, hostel staff, and campaigners from the respective hostels. The EC then meets to enforce vote cuts and other penalties, if applicable, before announcing the final results.
Following the elections and by-elections, the EC conducts the Oath Ceremony, where the EC, along with the CRC, conducts an introductory session with the Union Council explaining the procedure, expectations and work.
When violations occur, the EC first issues a warning. Depending on the violation and evidence, candidates can face campaign bans, vote cuts or, in the most serious cases, cancellation of candidature. A campaign ban curtails the candidate or his campaigners from seeking votes during a set number of hours. Vote cuts reduce the votes that the candidate has obtained; they can be a percentage of the electorate or the percentage voted in favour of the candidate. If the violation is identified as a flagrant violation under their guidelines, it leads to immediate cancellation post-investigation. The EC’s objective is not simply to punish, but to assess the unfair advantage gained through a violation and restore fairness through an appropriate penalty.
The EC was also immensely grateful to the administration, which they described as the backbone of the entire process—from printing ballots and booking auditoriums for the debates to facilitating the Common Room Debates and maintaining decorum on polling day.
They described this year’s manifestos as ambitious and added that even achieving half of what has been promised would make for an exciting year. Looking ahead, the EC hopes to see greater accountability through review meets—and, more importantly, actual attendance at them. They particularly hope that at least one of these review meets would finally see the light of day.
The EC urged the GBM to hold their representatives accountable, noting that there is only so much they can do. Greater involvement and volunteering from the GBM would only make the EC stronger. According to their data, on average, the elected representatives only fulfil around 30% of their manifesto promises. To tackle this issue, they introduced a ‘Manifesto Review’ that would be held twice in a tenure — once in the middle of the academic year to check on the progress and another towards the end to finally tabulate what was done. There would be consequences if the manifesto has not been adequately fulfilled. Another pilot initiative was holding orientations for the GBM to explain good practices during the election cycle and to inform them about what they can expect, which would help them make an informed decision and improve the voter turnout, which stood at 70%.
Reflecting on their tenure, the EC noted that while they received extensive knowledge transfers from their seniors, their tenure brought several novel cases with no precedents to fall back on. With only a limited set of penalties available, ensuring fairness proved to be one of their toughest challenges. Existing frameworks were tested, which exposed cracks and shortcomings, and highlighted the need to revamp the guidelines as situations evolved. The EC exercised its discretion to update these guidelines when required and called for a Constitution Review to ensure that the framework remained up-to-date.
Beyond conducting fair elections, the EC oversees the Oasis and APOGEE charters, the Constitution and the Procedure Manual, and interprets the Constitution whenever disputes arise. It is also mandated to conduct a Constitution Review every three years.
The EC also highlighted how several campus conveniences which are now taken for granted—from SAC, Amul and eateries to buggies and even the dual-degree system—are the result of years of work by the Union Council. Change may take time, but its impact lasts. The EC stressed that the Union Council makes a significant difference to campus life, making it all the more important for the GBM to make an informed choice. They hoped that the elections would not become a popularity contest, and the candidates would be judged on their competence alone.
Finally, the EC encouraged the GBM to consider the Information Seminar, Common Room Debates, and Auditorium Debates, and exercise due diligence toward the manifestos before making their choice. Elections may occupy only a small part of the academic year, but the Union Council elected will shape campus life throughout it.