Even before the casting of the first vote, the elections to the post of General Secretary and President of the Students’ Union (SU) have been marred with controversy. The first public sign of disagreement between the SU and the Election Commission (EC) was an announcement that an Union Council meet was being held to discuss and vote upon the prospect of shifting elections to the next semester, after the EC had already called for nominations and sent out an election schedule for the semester. The meet itself witnessed long drawn debates between the EC and the SU over the benefits and problems with the even semester election system and discussions regarding constitutional technicalities. Once these debates showed no signs of concluding, the administration was forced to step in. This was closely followed by a root mail sent by the EC with the support of the administration warning SU and SSMS post holders to not interfere in elections or prevent prospective candidates from filling out their nominations. It labelled such action as constitutional violations, warranting even removal from office. More recently, another EC root mail warned the GBM to be wary of “nefarious elements” utilising their anonymity to spread misinformation and push their agendas. The English Press Club interviewed both Satyansh Rai, the President of the Students Union, and Vishnu Raj, a member of the Election Commission, to understand the points of contention and find out if a final agreement has been reached.

UC Meet

On April 2nd, Akash Singh, the General Secretary of the Students Union, sent a root mail informing students of a Union Council meet to be held the same day. This mail mentioned that the Union Council would be discussing the prospect of shifting elections back to the odd semester and that a vote would be conducted regarding the same.

The meet began around 6:20. In addition to the members of the UC, two superintendents from the Chief Warden’s office, as well as members of the Election Commission, were present at the meet.

Akash Singh and Satyansh Rai stated that they had the constitutional authority to call a UC meet to discuss and vote on any issue affecting the SU. They then detailed their reasons for wanting to shift elections back to the odd semester. After explaining these points, Satyansh called upon the EC to conduct the vote, to which the latter promptly replied that they won’t conduct nor recognise the vote.

The EC members asserted that the UC doesn’t have the right to interfere with the election procedure. They said that doing so would set dangerous precedent for incumbent position holders pushing for guidelines that favour certain candidates.

Satyansh stated that since the election dates directly affect the students at large, he had the right to initiate a vote in the UC that the EC must carry out. The EC replied that—according to the constitution—they had the final say in such matters, and it was their view that even semester elections lead to a more informed electorate and thus fairer elections. The EC recommended that the matter should be discussed with the administration.

A lengthy debate ensued between the UC and EC members. The Chief Warden and SWD Associate Dean arrived a while later and asked the UC and EC to clarify their stances and give an update on any decisions made so far.

As the parties were no closer to making a decision, Akash requested the Chief Warden or CRC to conduct the vote, as the procedure stated that staff members who are in an advisory capacity can conduct voting when such conflicts happen.

EC members stated that the consequences of a shift to even sem couldn’t be determined in just one election cycle, and thus the current system should be continued for at least one more year. Satyansh inquired whether a separate team could be set up, that would investigate the aspects of the even sem decision, to which the EC replied that this was just a tactic to stall the election and inevitably push it to the odd sem.

EC and UC members kept expanding upon their respective points and arguments, with no indication of coming to an agreement soon. By this point, the meet had gone on for more than three hours. Both the members of the administration present accepted that both parties’ arguments had their merits and demerits, and a compromise has to be reached. They argued that since this was a deadlock situation, they should follow standard parliamentary procedure and conduct a vote.

After some further discussion, they declared that the voting would happen, but the result wouldn’t be made public. Instead, it was concluded that the voting result would be used as feedback. CRC then proceeded to take the roll call and conducted the vote, after which the meet ended.

On Involvement Of SU Representatives

Vishnu mentioned that the EC felt the need to send out an email regarding SU interference in elections after hearing rumours with some level of credibility that such events were happening. The EC did not have hard proof to take action against the violators, so it sent the email to warn some people about their actions. Vishnu emphasised that they sent this email with the full support of the Dean of Administration and the Chief Warden, and that the wording of the email was in bold, both of which are rare. The EC briefed the Chief Warden about the situation regarding interference in the election procedure by incumbents, and conveyed the magnitude of the violation. The Chief Warden, in turn, promised to prosecute the violators if sufficient evidence was levied, which allowed the EC to use the email as a warning message.

Speaking further of the nomination fiasco, Vishnu said,  ‘The nominations did have a lot of ups and downs.. we do still receive calls, rumours through word of mouth, about what actually happened. All we can say is that none of that should have happened. People should abide by a moral conscience, it shouldn’t be a dirty game. Elections are intra-campus activities for the benefits and needs of the students, it is not something that should be messed with to this extent.’

On Interference With The Election Process

Vishnu went on to address the more recent email sent regarding “nefarious elements” and their interference in the election procedure, saying that this email was circulated because of a particular Whatsapp group. He pointed out that people that take time out to campaign for a certain outcome generally have ulterior motives, and that the EC wanted the GBM to take that into consideration. No member of the GBM is permitted to tamper with the electoral outcomes, and so Vishnu guaranteed that the admin of the Whatsapp group would face harsh repercussions if identified. ‘After you’ve heard from everyone’s campaigns,  a healthy debate or discussion between friends is always welcome. The specific messages the admin of this group is sending, even going to the extent of personally messaging people… Such desperate attempts, combined with the nature of the message, leads us to believe it is clearly not healthy debate.’

Final Agreement

At the time of writing, a final agreement between the EC and the SU regarding the timings of future elections was being worked on. Satyansh indicated that this agreement would be made public soon. EPC learned from the EC that it likely plans to put this matter to the general public for an informed vote in the near future.

Arguments in favor of Odd Semester Elections

1. The first year batch forms a sizeable section of the students, and not giving them the right to vote for their own representatives by conducting elections in the even semester results in first years being unaware of student activities and SU’s workings. This may, in turn, lead to their problems going unnoticed or unattended.
2. The close-proximity of the campaigning period to the comprehensive examinations hampers the academics of the candidates, campaigners, and the GBM. This would also make places like the library and IPC lab an ideal place to campaign. The average CG of people involved with elections, which includes campaigners, was found to have dropped last year. In contrast, under the odd semester system, most of the election preparation is carried out during summer.
3. Keeping the elections close to APOGEE will disturb the dynamics of the student body and the fest, and may impair work towards the fest, as SU members who plan to stand for a post will also form camps and frame their manifestos in the same period.
4. Even under the even semester election system, H-Rep elections still need to be held in the odd semester. This leads to reduced voter turnout for H-Rep elections, as well as a political atmosphere that lasts throughout the entire even semester that may interfere with other events.
5. Under odd semester elections, the information flow to first years can be channelized and organized, since candidates and campaigners are monitored by the EC and administration. However, if elections are not held, potentially inaccurate information is passed through club/department interactions.
6. Since there will be no campaigners over summer and during the beginning of the odd semester, there are less people motivated to help out first years, and consequently less activity both on online and offline forums for providing assistance to first years.
7. An election in the even semester increases the scope for collusion between the existing post holders and the prospective candidates.

Arguments in favor of Even Semester Elections

1. The electorate will be better informed about the roles of the President and General Secretary and the credibility of candidates.The incoming first years will still have representation in the UC in the form of the SR bhawan H-Reps.
2. Under the even-semester system, elections are held two to three weeks before the comprehensive examinations, allowing enough time to the candidates and campaigners to prepare. Moreover, if a campaigner is genuinely worried about his/her academics getting affected due to involvement in elections, he/she may simply choose to not be part of any camp. The fall in the grades of campaigners last year may not have been representative of the impact of even semester elections, since the fee hike protests also took place last year.
3. Holding the elections in the first two weeks of April ensures a sufficiently long buffer between APOGEE and the election cycle.
4. To combat the unfamiliarity of the SU to first years, they can be directly introduced to their President and General Secretary, through formal orientations conducted by the UC. The UC can further conduct interactive sessions in first year hostels to help resolve any issues first years are facing.
5. Revised tenure ensures that the elected representatives can get to work on their manifesto points a lot earlier than usual. In addition, they can work with the StuCCa and CoStAA over the summer.
6. During odd semester elections, informal interactions during campaigning often led to ragging and dissemination of incorrect information to first years. Last year, this resulted in the Director himself limiting campaigning in SR Bhawan and other first year hostels for only one hour per day, limiting all interaction with seniors.
7. Pre-final year students who will be off campus in the first semester of their final year will also get to vote. Each student shall be voting the same number of times; only the voting period will change.