The constitution of the BITS Students’ Union is a document which embodies the fundamental principles of the Union and defines the relationship between the various institutions at play. Recently, Union Council representatives faced tremendous flak from the GBM and other selected representatives for violating the rules defined in this document, which ensued in heated email correspondence. The events that played out in the recent past have shown numerous conflicting narratives, which have not only confused the GBM but also grossly misrepresented the official documents at hand.

• Inconsistencies with the Constitution and Procedure Manual

Since the constitution has not been reviewed in the past twelve years, there are multiple grey areas in it which have led to ambiguity. The disputes regarding the interpretation of certain sections of this document have led to the parties citing arguments based on technicalities. 

According to Section M Clause 7 of the constitution, the CRC has a right to ask any member of the Union Council for proof of financial transactions in any form. 

“The CRC shall have the right to enjoin any member of the Union Council or its organs to maintain records or proofs of financial transactions in any form (ledgers, counterfoils, invoice statements, credit memos, etc.) and shall be produced to the CRC on demand. Gratuitous failure to maintain/ produce such records/ proofs shall be a flagrant violation of the constitution.”

The clause does not specifically say that the documents to be produced include negotiations and quotes. Due to this discrepancy, the relevant post-holder(s) have presented the GBM with the argument that they are technically not liable to produce these documents. This implies that any post-holder can get away with a certain degree of financial mismanagement solely on the basis of the incompetence of the current clauses. 

Additionally, the Oasis Charter does not specify which organisation has to take responsibility for organising food stalls, which are an integral part of the fest. This again leads to ambiguity regarding the entire process of acquiring and negotiating with the vendors. 

• Inconsistencies on the SU’s side

Ashirwad Karande released a statement claiming that he admitted to taking a cut of 2.5 per cent as an act of vigilante justice which was supposed to prevent “backdoor transactions” by the previous General Secretary, Harsh Lamba, and StuCCAn, Karishma K. An eleven-page document was also presented to the GBM, where Ashirwad stated that the SU presented all required documents to the EC and CRC and they could not come to any conclusion regarding the same. 

The myriad of conflicting narratives from all bodies involved highlights the fact that the entire process of ensuring that food stalls are present in the fest is ambiguous. Unfortunately, following a dated constitution has led us to a situation wherein the current representatives might have stolen money from the fest. Due to obscurity, there is enough room left for them to push forth a wildly contrasting narrative, which may or may not be true. 

• Inconsistencies on CRC’s side

An email sent by CRC on January 17, 2023, declared that both Ashirwad Karande and Naman Jalan will be acting in an advisory capacity for APOGEE negotiations. CRC is the final interpreter of the Procedure Manual (which includes the APOGEE and OASIS charters) and can implement the given changes according to the same. The email also specified that both of them cease to hold their financial signatory powers for all payments, which fall under Section F of the constitution. CRC does not have the jurisdiction to interpret the SU constitution and implement changes pertaining to it, hence this declaration is a misrepresentation of the written document. 

An important question which needs to be raised is why is the Election Commission, a body existing solely to interpret the constitution and ensure that the correct course of action is followed, not providing any clarity to the GBM. 

The events that have transpired in the past couple of months have highlighted the need to update the constitution and procedure manual. After analysing only a few clauses from these documents, we can see the flaws in the current system. Modifying the written rules to ensure transparency and accountability might be the change we needed all along.