On May 14, 2022, an official mail from the Election Commission (EC) was sent out citing the early termination of the tenures of the then President—Harsh Shukla—and the then General Secretary—Harsh Lamba. This communication was accompanied by a 25-page document titled “DVM StuCCAn et al. vs Students Union President and General Secretary”, mentioning several reasons for the EC’s action. The next day, the General Secretary deemed the EC’s decision ‘unconstitutional’ and issued an explanation as a rebuttal to their document. On May 17, the English Press Club spoke with Harsh Shukla and Harsh Lamba about the allegations against them, their response to the situation, and the prospect of a Grievance Cell being formed.

Shukla and Lamba received an email from the EC with the first set of grievances against them—filed by Anshal Shukla and another anonymous complainant—on May 10 and were asked to respond to the concerns within 24 hours. They suggested that this be taken up after their comprehensive examinations; however, their final deadline, set by the EC, was to be May 12. Even though they felt that they were not constitutionally obliged to answer the EC’s queries unless it were a Union Council General Body Members (UC GBM) meet, they submitted a document with all proofs they could gather within two days ‘in the interest of transparency’. On May 14, they received a formal notice of their termination an hour before the GBM was informed. 

The EC, in their document, quoted two specific complaints and attached the complainees’ responses. Of the several contentions they had with these responses, the EC justified the deadline to submit the proofs since the President himself raised the motion against the DVM StuCCAn, Anshal Shukla. Upon being asked by the EPC about the same, Harsh Shukla pointed out certain communications that could only have been shown to the EC in person ‘to maintain anonymity’. Acknowledging that there was room for the SU’s response to be more ‘extensive’, they again attributed this to the stringent timeline they were working with. Nevertheless, they maintained that the EC had overstepped by not raising a motion against the then President and General Secretary and letting the GBM decide the fate of their tenure. 

Both Shukla and Lamba believed that the complaints against them were ‘baseless’ to begin with. Constitutionally, Lamba is expected to make the minutes of every UC GBM meet public. Anshal’s concerns about them misleading the GBM by not adding the EC’s reversal of their vote and reinstating him as the DVM StuCCAn, therefore, was not their constitutional undertaking. Even though the EC asked them to inform the GBM about the final decision for completeness of information, Lamba did not do so since this was not done in a UC GBM meet. Adding to this, the Union Council was ‘still discussing’ the EC’s decision regarding Anshal’s removal as the DVM StuCCAn since their only basis for not acknowledging the passage of this motion was section N.6 of the Constitution, which gives the EC the right to interpret all its non-financial sections.

Maintaining and releasing minutes of the APOGEE Preview Meet, which they said ‘happened for the first time ever’, was another constitutional responsibility of the General Secretary. Lamba said that the objective of this meet was only for club coordinators to consolidate their issues and for the UC to provide redressal. Even though he acknowledged that this was his duty, he said it was not a solid premise for reducing his tenure. Shukla added how this sets a bad precedent for future Unions as the EC tried to impeach them based on a ‘dry technicality’. Countering the allegations of a CoStAAn not fulfilling the criteria of working for at least two fests in their department, Shukla said they had received no complaint against the said CoStAAn, Shreya Gupta, and they could not be expected to check every CoStAAn’s background unless asked to do so.

When asked about the purview of the EC in coming to the decision of suspension, the General Secretary repeatedly quoted section O.2 of the Students’ Union Constitution, which states, “candidates declared elected in the elections shall assume office immediately after being administered the oath of office and shall continue to hold the same till the next Union Council is elected”. They said that the EC ‘immorally and unconstitutionally’ terminated their tenure on ‘trivial’ matters and stated two occasions on which the EC itself did not fulfil its duties. The Constitution, which was last amended in 2011, is supposed to be reviewed every three years. The duo added that even after multiple reminders, the EC never called for a formal meeting for the same, and the Union Council already has a new draft ready. Furthermore, every time a vacancy exists in the Union Council, the EC is supposed to inform the GBM and conduct by-elections, none of which happened when Pranav Yellayi resigned as the 2019 Batch Representative. 

When explicitly asked about the actions they might have taken in their tenure which potentially led to the events so far, Shukla avoided the question and circled back to how whatever actions the EC was unsure about should have been thoroughly investigated and left for the GBM to decide. They denied all allegations made by the EC against them because, according to them, ‘the EC’s investigation was completely unfair’. The duo then talked about the inconsistencies surrounding Anshal’s claim of receiving the backing of five other StuCCAns. Shukla claimed that two of these StuCCAns were ready to support him and come out against Anshal if need be. Shukla added that the meeting in which the department heads backed Anshal’s StuCCAnship, was not an ‘official StuCCAns’ meet’ since neither Shukla nor Lamba, who were technically still StuCCAns, were invited for the same.

According to them, the administration was also involved in this entire debacle. Shukla said that the Chief Warden, who is also the Faculty In-Charge of the Election Commission, is ‘actively involved’ in vetting root mails and ensuring none of the rules regarding root mails are violated. Therefore, sending the EC’s communication via the Mail Admin seemed intentional to them. They also felt that as the primary stakeholders in this scenario, it was important for the Chief Warden to ‘consult’ them and verify this action’s legitimacy. Shukla added that the administration and the SU are always ‘at odds against each other’ since the latter’s priority is always what is in the best interest of the students. Restating that the Chief Warden did not send out their mail even after multiple reminders, they felt that he was not being neutral, and it was in the administration’s benefit to have a ‘handicapped Union’ and a ‘dummy President’. Coupled with these reasons, they added that they had spent a couple of hours with the Chief Warden on May 14 to discuss a number of initiatives, and there was not even the slightest indication that their tenure was about to get reduced. 

They added how gatherings of even ‘four to five people’ were being prevented as guards patrolled multiple spots on campus, the day the EC sent their mail. When asked if this could be due to them urging for a ‘public show of support’ in their mail, they said their intention behind that statement was for people to use public forums to opine on what the EC did and nothing more. Shukla also claimed that the Chief Warden had assured them that he would respond to their mail which highlighted the EC’s ‘unconstitutional’ measures. However, they never received said mail. 

Shukla remarked that the GBM’s negotiating powers with the administration had been drastically impaired since their representatives’ legitimacy had been questioned. Affirming that it is completely ‘counterproductive’ for the administration to get involved in students’ affairs, if found that the administration was an active party to these proceedings, it would set a ‘dangerous precedent’. Shukla added that the events so far have affected them mentally and academically, and they have been ‘publicly humiliated’ because of the EC and administration. This prompted them to approach the Vice-Chancellor, Director, and the likes to urge them to form a Grievance Cell under University Grants Commission (UGC) Guidelines. This cell will primarily delve into the ‘defamation and loss of legitimacy’ claims of Shukla and Lamba.

Extrapolating the reasons revolving around their ‘defamation’, they want the Grievance Cell to be formed, they also addressed certain personal and derogatory remarks made in the APOGEE Review Meet (ARM). Shukla admitted that the meet was not conducted in a ‘gentleman-like manner’, and apologised for his comments, which may have affected certain individuals present there. However, he maintained that the UC’s decision to put DVM under probation was not an overreach of power since they are the sole representatives of all students and have a birdseye view of the fest, unlike the coordinators or department heads who might have a more microscopic or club-centric perspective. He explained that the erstwhile nineteen-member body was now a Union Council of eight because of the absence of hostel representatives, who were not elected for at least two years because of the pandemic. He blamed the EC again for not conducting Hostel Representatives’ elections and added that the voting panel would have seemed more diverse and well-represented if the Hostel Representatives were a part of it.

The President reiterated that it was under the ambit of the EC to prove its decision’s propriety by conducting a referendum, as prescribed in the Constitution. Additionally, all previous initiatives taken by Shukla and Lamba are still being approved by them, and they have not lost their signatory powers. The current leadership, as Shukla informed, is still the same as they have received the support of all UC members, and there is no acting President or acting General Secretary. They essentially dismissed this fiasco as a ‘power-grabbing move’ by the EC and hoped this would not influence future EC batches. They concluded by saying that the GBM holds the sole power to select and remove its representatives and not ‘an autocratic body of three members’.