AUSG Re-Elections: A Review of the Elections So Far

The 2026-27 elections for the Ashoka University Student Government (AUSG) began in the middle of reading week. The nominations for candidates were opened on 27th April, 2026, before the announcement of the complete list of Ashoka University Election Commission (AUEC) members, and just three days after Chief Election Officer (CEO) Navneet Kaur (UG '28) had taken office. The delay in commencement was in itself in violation of Chapter 9, Sec. 9.1(I) of the Election Code, and what followed was a rushed and truncated election cycle that raised far more questions than it answered. 

The trouble began with confusing instructions for voters. The AUEC, in its email announcing the candidates, stated that students could vote for “up to 15 candidates”. This was later amended in accordance with Election Code Sec. 4.2 (D) wherein each student only had four votes to elect representatives from their cohort. The next hitch arrived with affidavits: the AUEC chose to share a standardised template for candidates to fill, rather than have the AUEC manually draft and ratify affidavits itself. This received some criticism, most notably from outgoing AUSG President Insha Husain (UG '26), but was deemed necessary in the interest of time by AUEC. The AUEC also pointed out that the compilation of affidavits was not the “mandatory responsibility of the Election Commission under the Election Code.” 

The three debates - Accountability, Presidential, and Undergraduate (UG) Council– were next on the timeline. All three are vital components of the electoral process, and permit voters to examine their outgoing representatives as well as their candidates for the next election cycle. The Accountability debate was conducted on the evening of 2nd May. The AUEC failed to invite outgoing Treasurer Vedant Malhotra (UG ‘26), who was nevertheless present in the audience and joined the debate midway. Both the Accountability debate and the Presidential debate, held in exam week, attracted a smaller audience than they might have in less academically rigorous periods. The UG Council debate, on the other hand, was never conducted, due to a combination of candidate unavailability and scheduling constraints. 

The voting period was originally scheduled to begin at 12 pm on 6th May, but was delayed by three hours.  All candidates contesting from the United Student Front (USF) were disqualified for violating the Silence Period code of conduct. Though USF released an official apology at the time, affirming its continued cooperation with the AUEC, USF’s outgoing UG Councillor Naisha Kamboj (UG’ 26) later sent an email to the student body on behalf of the collective detailing concerns of repeated violations of the Election Code by the AUEC. Among the concerns raised were that the campaign period did not meet the prescribed 5-10 day requirement, and that the elections were conducted at least partially during an “academic recess” (Spring semester officially ended on 9th May). 

The election results were scheduled to be released on the night of  9th May. However, earlier that day, the AUEC released a statement clarifying an error in quorum calculations for the campus-wide positions of President and General Secretary. The YIF and Late Graduating batches had not been accounted for. This mid-election correction of quorum was something Kamboj flagged in her email as violating the Election Code, since Sec 4.11 obligates the AUEC to “publicly announce the applicable turnout threshold prior to the commencement of each election cycle during the transitional period and thereafter.”  Nevertheless, voting lines were reopened for both batches, with the AUEC citing the sanctity of universal franchise. 

USF was not the only one with concerns around AUEC processes. The Edict spoke with AUEC Chief Technical Officer (CTO) Anurav Singh (UG '26), who had stepped back from the YIF and Late Graduate elections owing to similar concerns regarding the AUEC’s consistent violation of the Election Code, which he felt were “stretching” the commission’s interpretive powers. 

The election results were finally announced on 10th May. Neither the Presidential election nor the election for General Secretary met the required quorum, and both were consequently declared invalid. The fourth-year council also failed to meet quorum, and only 3 out of 4 seats were filled in the third-year council, with one going to NOTA. No nominations were filed for the PhD council at all. The AUEC confirmed that by-elections would be held for all vacant seats. 

The Edict spoke with some of the candidates who had contested elections. Partho Roy (UG’ 28) said that the collective believed their disqualification was “[an] extremely disproportionate response” to the violation. “The decision was made in under an hour, not allowing sufficient time for clarification,” Roy said. “[USF] appealed the AUEC’s decision to the registrar, but the final decision has been delayed until the day of the election results.” Roy explained that the collective’s delay in responding to the AUEC’s silence period guidelines was primarily due to individual students managing academic commitments during finals week, although he acknowledged that the lapse was on USF’s part. 

However, Roy also raised concerns about the uniform enforcement of silence period guidelines. “It is stated in Section 7.3 [of the Election Code] that electronic communication is counted as campaigning material, which USF brought up with the Election Commission, as that would also count as a violation considering all candidates had digital posters up on social media during the silence period.” This concern, too, was shared by CTO Singh. Speaking about the disqualification of USF, Singh said, “I do believe that there has been an inconsistent reading of the [electoral] code. Either digital content is campaign material or it is not - if it is, then it must be taken down too, since it is arguably more visible. If it isn't, then candidates should be able to continue posting on their socials throughout the silence period.” Singh argued that while the AUEC may have been justified in disqualifying USF, the disqualification set a standard to be followed by all collectives, but also by the commission itself. “The AUEC has failed to meet this standard by conducting this ad hoc cycle, which is unjust.” 

Roy further highlighted the impact that USF’s disqualification would have on electoral choice, since it left Horizon as the sole collective in the running against independent candidates. “While election rules must be upheld, penalties should not undermine the fundamental principle of political competition,” Roy said. “A healthy democracy depends on students being presented with genuine choices and competing perspectives.” 

However, Horizon GenSec candidate Kriti Chhibber (UG’ 28)⁠ denied claims of Horizon benefiting from USF's disqualification. “It effectively erases the work independent candidates are doing,” she said. “Horizon is not the only one contesting an election on campus. This tendency to only approach electoral practice as a competition between parties is doing material harm on campus, because independent candidates also deserve recognition for their ideas, other than just be categorised as fodder in the election.” Nevertheless, she agreed that having one of the major collectives out of the running “reduces political participation on campus.” Chhibber suggested that this was a problem with much greater implications. “We have concrete precedent of the admin taking controversial measures during break periods due to the inability of the student body to mobilize in that time, so it's particularly worrying that we may not have a full SG to plan, research, and negotiate over the three precious months.”

The AUEC officially opened nominations for the by-elections on 13th May. “The successful constitution of the Student Government is essential to the functioning of representative student structures on campus,” read their email. The quorum requirement remained the same at 40% voter turnout. The Edict spoke with CEO Kaur regarding the AUEC’s plans to address the procedural challenges that marred the first round of elections. Though the re-election remained in violation of the election code by virtue of being conducted over Summer Break, Kaur said that the primary goal was “to ensure that the pending seats and offices are filled through a valid process under the election code.” Kaur clarified that, following deliberations with the Registrar’s office, the commission decided that previous disqualifications would not automatically carry over to the re-election cycle, making USF candidates eligible to nominate themselves. USF Presidential candidate Roy contested the post a second time, with other USF candidates also contesting General Secretary and UG Council seats. 

It is worth noting that the re-election cycle faced many of the same challenges as the original timeline did. For one, the campaign period remained truncated, extending for just three days between 14th May and 17th. Kaur explained that the timeline was kept relatively short as the AUEC aimed to complete the process before the fourth-year batch graduates and other cohorts became occupied with summer commitments.

However, the odd timing of the re-election cycle continued to pose concerns about voter turnout. “In the event that the re-elections are also unable to reach a valid conclusion, the concerned offices would continue to remain vacant until a subsequent electoral process is conducted under the election code,” Kaur said. “In practical terms, that would impact parts of the AUSG’s functioning, particularly roles like President and General Secretary, since several ministries and institutional processes are tied to those offices. That said, the commission’s present effort is directed towards ensuring that the current process reaches a valid and representative conclusion.”

The AUEC released the official list of candidates for the re-elections on 14th May. Most of the original candidates contested once again, with the addition of Independent Presidential candidate Sudyotman Sudershan (UG’ 28), and independent General Secretary candidate Animesh Ojha (MA 2025). It is worth noting that the two new candidates did not have the opportunity to speak at the Presidential Debate owing to the tight schedule for the re-elections. 

Candidates for the vacant seat on the Third Year council were independent candidate Harshit Arya (UG '28) and USF candidate Trisha Iyer (UG’ 28). Only four candidates are contested for positions on the Fourth Year UG Council, three of them under the Horizon banner: Teesha Aurora (UG’ 27), Arnav Gupta (UG’23), and Ayushi Choudhary (UG '23). The fourth candidate was USF’s Sulagna Moitra (UG '23), who also contested the post of General Secretary. Affidavits for the candidates were released early on 15th May. 

Voting lines were opened for re-elections at 12 pm on 18th May, and remained open till noon on 20th May. The re-election results were declared at 6:30 pm on 20th May. An upcoming post will cover the election results.

(Edited by Anamta Husain)