The interview began with Harsh Shukla, the SU President, being asked about a timeline of his stay on campus and the work done. He explained that he has been on campus for the last two weeks with permission from the Chief Warden, who had allowed him and Lamba to come early. They have been facilitating the reopening process and ‘representing the interests of the GBM’.
When prompted again, he said that he had come to campus briefly in the first week of August as well. During that time, he had worked to audit the trunks for the trunk service with Lamba. All the trunks are currently being shifted to Vishwakarma Bhawan.
Elaborating on his other duties on campus, he told the EPC about the document SU had been preparing to inform the GBM of the ‘work they had completed during the week’. This document would also contain the minutes of all official meetings conducted by the SU. In addition, he described how when he and Lamba had first arrived on campus, they had worked to ‘fortify the entire campus’ to prevent outbreaks. They had made structural changes to known popular spots on campus to prevent viral spread. Additionally, they are ‘zoning the campus’ into different hostel zones and will individually test the sewage from each zone to check for COVID.
On the debacle regarding the SSMS volunteers, Shukla lamented how this event has painted both the SU and SSMS in a ‘very wrong light’. He claimed to ‘not shy away from accepting a mistake’ and admitted that the volunteer selection process had been rushed and ‘hasty’. He did, however, say that they had been given very short deadlines, clarifying that ‘this is not an excuse’.
Concerning the criteria on which the volunteers were selected, he said that the volunteers had been chosen because they had worked with SU and SSMS members in the past, and some of them are even elected representatives. The SU had given the SSMS President an extensive list of potential volunteers, and then the SSMS had taken the final decision and ‘chose the people they [SSMS] felt were right.’ Shukla said that the volunteers have been present on behalf of SSMS but have helped the SU as well.
When asked why the GBM had not been informed about this list of volunteers, he asked to ‘redirect’ the question to the SSMS President. Shukla was asked about why the SU had not considered the fact that the SSMS has enough of a workforce to call its own members instead of needing volunteers. He refrained from answering and said that the question was more relevant to the SSMS President. ‘We were asked for suggestions for volunteers and we gave it to them,’ he said.
Commenting on the work that the volunteers have done for the SU, Shukla said ‘I’ll say that they were gracious in helping us with our work like shifting trunks, taking inventory of the rooms because two hostels are under renovation and two hostels are being used for quarantine, getting a figure of the number of rooms available for occupancy, helping with the making of wings for the 2020 batch. Apart from that they oversaw the maintenance of the grass cutting and fumigation of hostels.’
When asked about whether there had been more first degree people when they went back to campus, Shukla clarified that the volunteers, along with the ME and MBA students, had been the only ones on campus.
Shukla was questioned about the presence of people in SAC on the day of Lamba’s incident. He said that an SU meeting with the volunteers had previously been scheduled. However, ‘due to personal reasons’, some volunteers could not make it to the meeting, and the meeting had been cancelled. ‘In the evening, the General Secretary, against his better judgement, decided to hold a personal event in SAC and that is what the video is from. The Students’ Union took notice of it and took corrective measures as quickly as possible,’ he added.
He said that Lamba had the Chief Warden’s permission for an official SU meet at 5 PM and when the meet did not occur, Lamba proceeded to decorate SAC. According to Shukla, the incident occurred sometime later in the night. Since SAC closes at 9 PM, it would have to be before that.
He said that he did not have an idea about the amount of time allotted by the Chief Warden for the SU meeting to take place and to ask the General Secretary since he had taken permission. He added that the General Secretary had told him that no one had been invited to SAC and that since SAC is an open area, they could do nothing to stop people from entering. Shukla also said that he had no idea about the number of people present in SAC when the incident occurred. ‘It was dark and people were randomly walking in and out so… it’s an open space and there were a lot of people there,’ he remarked.
Shukla was then asked about the COVID protocols in place with respect to the gathering of students. ‘No public gathering has been officially allowed. Everyone has to maintain six feet distance, wear masks, and maintain usual protocols,’ he said.
When asked about the reason behind Lamba’s suspension, Shukla said, ‘He used SAC against permission for a personal event. He decorated a building and did not have permission for it. He is not an ordinary student; he is a representative. The expectations attached to him are higher with his responsibilities. Such lapse of judgement is not expected of someone holding the General Secretary’s office and corrective measures were allotted.’
Shukla said that the issue concerned both the Administration as well as the Union when asked about the people involved in reprimanding Lamba. He added, ‘The Chief Warden expressed his displeasure at the situation, and since the Union was being put in a bad light, and allegations such as misuse of power were being put on us, and to project accountability to the GBM, we [the Union Council] had to take the decision.’
When asked about whether it was stated in the Constitution that the Union Council has the power to suspend one of its members, Shukla said, ‘I think you should refer to the Election Commission for that.’
He then added, ‘No there isn’t such a clause; neither was there one for the Batch Representatives. I think the Election Commission deemed fit to issue the punishment and again all further questions should be directed to the Election Commission. I had a meet with the EC ‘19 batch members and then CRC, EC had a meet with me and we discussed the possible things we could go through. Finally, the suspension was fixed [sic].’ When it was pointed out that there may be differences between adding the Batch Representatives to the Constitution and the suspension scenario, Shukla said that since it is the EC’s job to interpret the Constitution, ‘I [Shukla] am not one to go against it.’
Shukla said that the General Secretary was suspended on counts of misusing SAC, sending the WhatsApp message regarding sending volunteers back on the “BPPC(1)” WhatsApp group, and ‘hastily’ calling the SSMS volunteers to campus. When asked why they did not take action regarding the SSMS volunteers scenario considering that it had happened much earlier and was subject to controversy, Shukla conceded that they had made a mistake and had failed to look at it from the GBM’s point of view.
When asked why J-4 was used to suspend the General Secretary, Shukla responded by saying that the article was applicable for anything that falls under the purview of the Union Council. He emphasised that the General Secretary had voluntarily accepted the suspension and that the EC had been kept in the loop throughout. He added that the J-4 clause had been invoked by him because the General Secretary’s ‘actions did not suit the dignity of his office’, and that the EC, UC, and CRC had agreed that suspending the General Secretary was the best way to reprimand him. He further addressed the legality of J-4 by stating that the EC had deemed it constitutionally legal. The proposal had been agreed upon in a meeting between Shukla, CRC, and EC.
Shukla added that the EC had prepared an ad hoc document regarding the suspension and the future course of action. This document will be presented to the GBM at the next Union Council meeting set to take place on September 21. He mentioned that the EC and CRC had adhered to Section O, Clause 7 of the Constitution and other relevant clauses while deciding the course of action. He reiterated that the General Secretary’s suspension was temporary, and in any case the post of Acting General Secretary would be created to be the caretaker of the office for as long as necessary.
When questioned, Shukla said that impeachment and resignation had been considered but impeachment could ‘only be initiated by the GBM.’ For reference, Section T, Clause A, Sub-clause 1 of the Constitution states that ‘To initiate a no-confidence motion against the president/general secretary, either one-third majority of the concerned electorate or two-third of the entire elected Union Council shall have to submit a signed memorandum to this effect to the Election Commision.’ Further, resigning was something only the General Secretary could do of his own accord. Since they did not have any final say in these two decisions, they decided on suspension.
Given that the impeachment process requires two-thirds of the GBM to vote, Shukla was questioned regarding whether the impeachment procedure was a feasible one. He responded by saying that it was his ‘job to follow the Constitution and not question it.’ He also mentioned that a Constitution Amendment Committee would be formed in the near future to re-evaluate certain parts of the Constitution, given that it was more than ten years old.
When asked about whether the SSMS volunteers would be sent back, Shukla said they would not, and that they would continue to work on campus. He added that while there was no timeline regarding the duration of their work and their return, the situation would be re-evaluated once the work ended, and a decision would be taken then.
Shukla was unwilling to comment on why the GBM was not informed about the volunteers, and requested that the question be redirected to the SSMS.
The next question posed to him was regarding the objectives of the upcoming UC GBM meet, which had been projected to be on the evening of September 21. Shukla said that the meeting intended to promote the SU’s principles of accountability and transparency and that ratifying the J-4 clause would also be on the agenda.
Regarding an advisory member of the EC from the 2018 batch, Shukla said that they have been on campus in a ‘personal capacity’. He added that they have been present as an SSMS volunteer and not for the EC. When asked whether this meant they have been there in an official capacity working under the SSMS, Shukla responded, ‘I don’t think there is an official post of being an SSMS volunteer.’ He said that there was no official communication between the SU and the advisory members of the EC, and was unwilling to comment on any unofficial channels of communication as they were ‘not relevant to the interview’.
Pertaining to the future of the General Secretary, Shukla said that that decision would be ratified in the UC GBM meeting. ‘We [the SU] are hoping to regain the GBM’s trust so that they appreciate the work we’re doing and not let the mistakes of one person reflect on the work of the entire organisation’, he concluded. He added that the SU would always be accountable and transparent, as seen by the quick actions taken after the recent events.