The English Press Club sat down to interview the Election Commission (EC) to understand what led them to remove Harsh Shukla and Harsh Lamba from their respective offices.
Elaborating on what events led to the termination of Harsh Shukla and Harsh Lamba, the EC provided a timeline of the events. Harsh Shukla had raised a motion in the UC GBM meet held on April 25, 2022 to remove Anshal Shukla—StuCCAn, Department of Visual Media (DVM)—from office and had levied a fine of ₹18,000 on him. This motion had been passed, but a stay order was issued on it as per Anshal Shukla v. Union Council, dated April 27, 2022. On April 29, 2022, the EC had received a complaint from Anshal regarding the same. The investigation that ensued culminated in Shukla and Lamba being mailed for their stance on the complaints received against them on May 10, 2022. When asked for proof ten days after attempting to remove Anshal from office, Shukla and Lamba had said that they would need more time to collect proof, leading the EC to suspect that Shukla and Lamba did not have the required proof during the UC GBM meet. Election Commissioner Aditya Iyer added that Shukla and Lamba had wanted an extension till the end of the comprehensive examinations, which was something the EC could not entertain. The EC had a voice recording of the UC GBM meet and intended to seek clarification from Shukla and Lamba at the earliest, which is why they had agreed to extend their deadline by a day. Further, they claim to have received a response from Lamba on May 11, 2022, contrary to what Shukla and Lamba had mentioned in their email.
When asked how the EC concluded that Shukla and Lamba had been attempting to mislead the GBM, they said that the investigation was based upon an audio recording of the UC GBM meet. Aditya Mishra brought up the short speech given by Harsh Shukla before he had introduced the motion, and mentioned that the speech has been transcribed in DVM StuCCAn et al v. Students Union President and General Secretary. The investigation was based on the statements made by Harsh Shukla. Aside from this, DVM had also been approached during the investigation. The EC added that DVM had sufficiently proven their stance.
It was highlighted on multiple occasions by the EC that they believed Shukla and Lamba had been misleading the GBM. They shared that Shukla had claimed that he had the support of two StuCCAns and two StuCCAn candidates. However, in a later response, he said he had a mail response from just one StuCCAn. As Shukla had promised the StuCCAn anonymity, he refused to share the details of the email, the EC however admitted that they had not probed the matter further either. The StuCCA had also approached the EC, and shared a signed statement derecognizing the action taken against Anshal. The EC also shared that when asked whether Anshal was informed that he had to be present at the UC GBM Meet, Shukla had misled them. He had claimed that Anshal was informed but the only communication the EC could find had been a single text message from Anirudh TK, a member of the CRC, asking, ‘Hey, will you be there at the UC GBM Meet?’. When Anshal asked if he had to be there, there was no timely response.
The EC stated that they had requested the SU to mention their judgement on Anshal Shukla v UC on their Facebook post regarding the Minutes of the Meet (MoM), but this was not replied to. This request was made in the interest of providing the complete picture to the GBM. They explained that the General Secretary has a 48-hour deadline to submit the MoM after a UC GBM meet. The EC explained that they had initially assumed that Lamba needed more time and expected that a mention of the verdict and the stay order would arise in the Facebook post, but that did not happen.
The EC, after having analysed the response from Shukla and Lamba for two days, had delivered their final judgement on May 14, 2022. The EC stated that this had been shared with Shukla, Lamba, the Institute administration, and the Corroboration and Review Committee (CRC) two hours before the root mail was sent out to the GBM.
The SU, in their email dated May 15, 2022, stated that the EC had extended the office-bearers’ tenures by one year in the past. The EC elaborated that the tenures of the then-President and General Secretary were to be extended until October, 2020. However, the elections were cancelled, shelving this plan. The EC once again emphasised on how the SU had again tried to mislead the GBM.
The EC declined to comment on who the next President and General Secretary would be, as the timeline for the elections for next term is still under discussion. They said that they were working towards formulating a solution as representation of the GBM is their primary objective.
Talking about the specifics of their move, the EC asserted that they wanted this to be a one-time move—Aditya Mishra himself called the move ‘undemocratic’ at its core. The EC also stated that they strongly discourage future ECs from taking such measures. They said that they had felt compelled, given that the system of checks and balances had failed to play its part. Sneha shared that Shukla and Lamba had been elected on the basis of a provision that was specific to the online elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, this move could not be employed in the future as this provision would not be in place. The EC did not use the “flagrant violation” clause, which has apparently never been used before, to remove Shukla and Lamba from office as they believed it would have set a wrong precedent. Aditya Iyer pointed out that one gets to solicit support from the concerned electorate in case they’re charged with committing a “flagrant violation”. Answering why they had not utilised this predefined mechanism to remove Shukla and Lamba, they remarked that this was a one-time measure which they did not want a repeat of. They had to resort to this because they believed that the system of checks and balances had failed. They went so far as to add that in the event that the GBM suggested an alternate mandate, they would retract their statements, reinstate Shukla and Lamba, and tender their resignations to apologise for going against the GBM.
Taking into consideration that the EC strongly condemns the route taken, they were asked what they would recommend future ECs do, if they were to face similar situations. They replied that while the appropriate course of action would be something that varies based on the situation, they had taken this step to ‘send a message’ and to ensure that future SUs understand that they cannot get away with misleading the GBM. They also confirmed that the EC has the power to alter the tenure of the President and the General Secretary during unprecedented circumstances, the definition of which is subject to interpretation.
When asked about the email sent by Shukla and Lamba labelling their actions as ‘unconstitutional’, Aditya Mishra pointed out that Shukla and Lamba had not denied any allegations made by the EC, and called it an ‘emotional outburst at best’. The EC were questioned about the allegations made against them by Shukla and Lamba in their email. The elections for Hostel Representatives (H-Reps) were addressed first. Sneha stated that since the hostels were going to be changed, there was no reason to conduct the elections, as that would result in the elected representatives being in power for only a month. She explained that conducting said elections would also have been a logistical challenge, taking into consideration the time crunch that would result due to multiple examinations and fests, as per the reporting dates and the timeline for an H-Rep election. The EC added that this entire topic had been discussed with the SU informally.
The next allegation they addressed was the involvement of the administration in the process of Shukla and Lamba’s removal from office. The Commissioners reiterated that they were the only individuals involved in taking the decision, and the administration was merely kept in the loop. The final allegation was that by-elections for vacant posts had not been held. Sneha and Aditya Iyer refuted this by highlighting that the by-elections had, in fact, been conducted, and Aditi Sharma and Nitin H Govind had emerged victorious in the same. They added that elections could not continuously be held when no one was standing for them.
The EC clarified that Shukla and Lamba are no longer part of the UC. Addressing the Grievance Cell mentioned by Shukla and Lamba in their email, the EC said that they were not aware of this provision, as it does not come under their purview.
Answering why this action could not have been taken post the Comprehensive Examinations, Aditya Mishra declared, ‘We believe that justice delayed is justice denied’ and added that it would have been ‘unethical’ had they left it for later.
The need to update the Constitution was questioned about next. There are multiple methods to do so, one being a member of the GBM raising an amendment in the UC GBM, and another being Charter reviews by the EC and the CRC. The EC mentioned that the last time the Constitution was updated was in 2011. There was a review process attempted in 2019, but it was not fruitful. Aditya Mishra said, ‘The fact with the amendment is that you need immense political will to carry it out because you need the support of the GBM irrespective of whether you go through the UC route or the CRC route.[sic]’ They added that updating the Constitution is something that they had informally discussed with the SU as well. Aditya Iyer said, ‘The GBM’s support would be integral to any action involving amendments.’ The EC recognised that with every passing year, the obsoleteness of the Constitution only increases. They said that an alternative solution is in the pipeline but they cannot reveal much now.
In conclusion, the EC said that their sole motive behind taking a decision like this—which, as they repeatedly stated, goes against everything the committee stands for—was that they did what they thought was right for the GBM. They added that a representative lying to the GBM at a public meeting undermines the nature of student democracy and representation that BITS has carried. The EC asserted that lying, misleading the GBM, being irresponsible, and ‘violating the ethos of democracy’ would always bear consequences, regardless of someone’s post in the office.