Accountability in Action: The Annual Accountability Debate 2026

The Election Cycle AY 2025-26 was officially set in motion with the accountability debate that took place on Friday, 2nd May, 2026. Organized by the Ashoka University Election Commission (AUEC) and moderated by The Edict’s outgoing Editors-in-Chief, Giya Sood (UG ‘27) and Madiha Tariq (UG ‘27), the debate serves as a platform to reflect on the outgoing Ashoka University Student Government’s (AUSG) promises, activities and leadership over their term. 

The debate began with questions posed to the House of Representatives (HoR) and the Undergraduate (UG) Council, followed by questions to the Cabinet Ministers.

Accountability and Transparency

In answering the critique about missing meeting minutes for about 9 of the 17 meetings held over the AUSG’s term, Partho Protim Roy (UG ‘28), UG council member, responded that events like the worker’s protests and the updated Residence Life policies were such that the minutes for some meetings could not be shared with the wider public sphere. They remained open to answering specific questions about said meetings. Regarding the RTIs filled by students, UG Council member Kritin Bhasin (UG ‘28), responded that both of the RTIs that were raised around the question of attendance were answered with a delay of  2-3 weeks. The statement by Kritin was corrected with an audience fact check, which claimed that no mail or reply was sent to the RTI request.

Insha Husain (UG ‘26), President of the AUSG, further clarified that the former Vice President of the AUSG, Ahana Walanju (UG ‘26), was in communication with the Public Relations Department (PRD). The Vice President’s resignation and the absence of by-elections placed surmounting stress on manpower which led to mechanism collapse. “It has been difficult for us to individually check after them and also to communicate between us as to what their status is,” the President said.

Responding to questions about empty SG files for worker’s protests and the Cohort Leadership Programme, the AUSG clarified that the worker’s protests were not a call from the SG but from the workers. They stated that all the information regarding protests was actively communicated through a chain of emails, and although the AUSG stood in solidarity with the workers, they did not initiate the protests and hence, did not publish records for the same.

Worker’s Protests and the Worker’s Welfare Committee (WWC)

Directed to Tanisha Iyer (UG ‘27), AUSG student head of the Workers Welfare Comittee, a question was raised about what they had done to support Ashoka’s first worker’s union. Iyer said that, since the re-formation of the union, the main goal has been to support workers. Having held multiple meetings with the union to understand what the outcomes of the strike were and how the union could take this forward, WWC also collated a list of demands on accessibility, untouchability etc. which was submitted to the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC). 

Questions about who accounted for the funds collected during the worker’s protests were directed at the AUSG to which members emphasised that fundraising was decentralized, involving individuals beyond the SG and that the process was transparent between people who were heavily involved in the strike. They argued that the fast-paced and labor-intensive nature of the strike made detailed accounting of the funds infeasible, framing expectations of full transparency during the protests as “unfair” in that specific context.

Working Group, shifting policies and substance use on campus

Recalling when 1500 students left campus on the first Thursday night after the implementation of the new hour bank policy, the AUSG was questioned about whether they regarded substance abuse as a problem on campus and if yes, what steps they have taken to curb the same. While acknowledging that substance use is a structural issue rather than an individual failing, AUSG also reiterated initiatives such as townhalls, conversations with the admin and  alternative Thursday night activities organized on campus in collaboration with the Ministry of Community Wellbeing (MCWB).

About the necessity for the constitution of an external Working Group (WG), Husain responded that the WG’s work was to rehash the policies that administration has newly formed and this is not the kind of work that can be accounted for within AUSG’s regular functioning workload. While WG was working on rehashing the policies and relaying this information to the admin, the SG was working in tandem with the WG and the admin to get certain policies implemented. 

Responding to the former UG Council member, Karandeep Gill’s  (UG ‘26) accusations of the HoR dismissing the working group’s proposals, AUSG confirmed that the disbandment of the WG was entirely the decision of their leadership. Husain clarified that tensions arose when WG wanted to function as an autonomous body while also remaining an anonymous group. This would push consequences of the WG’s work onto the AUSG. Despite the tensions, AUSG worked with the WG in terms of communication with the student body and the administration. Husain concluded that, “I do not agree that at any point the working group's suggestions were belittled or ridiculed because despite the fact that I might have not agreed with the functioning of the working group, I was always there to kind of negotiate with the administration despite having been told that they want to function autonomously from the SG “

Resignations, Cross-cohort integration and the absence of by-elections

As speaker of the HoR, Sneha Menon (UG ‘26) had previously identified cross-cohort integration and amplification of marginalized voices as key priorities. When asked about specific measures that were taken in this regard, Menon recalled the unfilled PhD, YIF and Masters Council seats as a major barrier to making cross-batch integration possible. She further noted that the HoR’s functioning was shaped by overlapping responsibilities across committees and complications in the Constitution Review Committee’s formation. As work was distributed fluidly across the UG Council, this reflected the strain of operating at significantly reduced capacity.

The resignation of Walanju was addressed directly as the President denied any internal conflict or misconduct, attributing the resignation to differences in vision. She described the working environment as “high pressure” with the council handling the workload at “insufficient manpower”. On the question of multiple resignations (Karandeep Gill and Sahaj Kishen (UG ‘26)), Husain reiterated that there has been no misconduct. However, it becomes difficult to work in a fast-paced, hectic environment where members have complicated interpersonal relationships.

An audience member raised the question, “If manpower was an issue that the SG faced during its tenure, why were by-elections not held to fill the vacancies?”. Although the AUSG was in communication with the AUEC regarding the timeline for by-elections, the Ashoka University’s International Student Association was yet to get a seat reserved for international students which led to further delays. Members described the semester as one where emergent crises ranging from student suspensions to worker’s protests required SG’s full and immediate attention.

[Edited by Fatema Tambawalla]