With the conclusion of the Student Union’s General Secretary (Gen-Sec) by-election and Hostel Representative elections, the Election Commission(EC) can breathe a sigh of relief. Last semester, in an interesting turn of events, the post of General Secretary remained vacant as the solitary candidate standing for the post lost to NOTA. This meant that despite a shift of the Presidential and Gen-Sec elections to the even semester, the post of Gen-Sec would once again be decided in the odd semester. Despite the logistical hurdles, Anirudh Tusnial, a fourth-year member of the EC, believed that the EC had taken fair and transparent decisions during the entire process.

One of the primary responsibilities of the body is to ascertain whether campaigning deadlines had been violated and deal with them appropriately. After having lost the presidential elections last semester, Akash Singh declared his intention to contest for the post of General Secretary on Facebook. The EC found the Facebook post to be in violation of rules against online campaigning and slapped a 3.5-day campaign ban prior to the Auditorium debate. When questioned about the effectiveness of the campaign ban given that the post had already provided Akash with crucial publicity in the months leading up to the elections, Anirudh defended the EC’s decision. He explained that after an extensive internal debate—where they considered factors such as length of time the post was online, its content, and the number of shares—they concluded that the ban would neutralize the online publicity he had gained because of the critical juncture during which it would be imposed: pre-Auditorium debate.

Anirudh refused to comment upon the opinions expressed in the anonymous Gen BITSian mails. He said that the issue was being dealt with within the EC. The EC gave no word on what impact those blog posts had on the elections or how they plan to deal with similar posts in the future.

Traditionally, the EC has imposed blanket bans on several forms of campaigning such as sloganeering, rallies, and large public gatherings. Their total ban on online campaigning has long been a contentious issue. Anirudh asserted that even if restricted online campaigning was allowed, its regulation would be extremely difficult. Imposing a blanket ban on online campaigning helps them avoid making tricky analyses of the magnitude and impact of differing content on different social platforms. He also quickly dismissed the notion that there was a correlation between a ban on online campaigning and the lack of female candidates. He stated that the EC, with the Institute’s support, had introduced special provisions for female candidates, ensuring equal footing during campaigning. If a female candidate were to contest the Presidential or Gen-Sec elections, she would officially be handed permission to interact in the common rooms of boys’ bhawans, during certain time slots. In addition, her door-to-door campaigning could be done by male campaigners.

During the SSMS Mess-Representative election polling which was conducted along with the SU election polling, the SSMSEC observed an incident of campaigning violation. It levied a 5% vote ban on a Mal mess-rep candidate for the violation, informing him only after voting had ended. Anirudh tactfully avoided commenting about the fairness of the SSMS-EC’s decision. However, he mentioned that in such situations it was typical EC protocol to put up notices to inform the electorate about campaign violations.