Interim Student Government Body appointed: What comes next?

On Thursday, June 11th, the Ashoka University Election Commission (AUEC) announced the formation of an ‘Interim Student Council Administrative Body (ISCAB)’. In an email addressed to the entire student body, the AUEC announced that the ISCAB would comprise the “8 representatives who were validly elected through the Student Government elections” earlier this summer. The mandate for the ISCAB (as per the AUEC’s email) is to “assume responsibility for student representation, coordination with the University administration, and the functioning of ministries and other student governance processes.” In a separate email, the members of the newly constituted ISCAB noted that the circumstances compelling such interim measures are “exceptional and unprecedented”, but that “the responsibilities of the student government must be carried out.” 

A policy document attached to the AUEC’s email outlined the terms of the ISCAB’s constitution and role in greater detail. It allows the ISCAB the right to “facilitate day-to-day communication with the administration, coordinate the functioning of ministries, and maintain records, agendas, and minutes of meetings”. Members of the ISCAB are allowed flexibility in how they divide up these responsibilities among themselves. Additionally, the policy grants the ISCAB the powers to “constitute and operationalise ministries and associated student bodies.” 

However, it is worth noting that the interim body has nowhere near the manpower of a fully functional AUSG. Speaking about the issues this poses, third-year UG Councillor Shatakshi Shelly (UG’28) told The Edict that the primary goal of the ISCAB was to ensure that there was “no gap in representation”, and to “address some key issues (like the appointment of ministers)”, rather than to perform all the functions of a formal student government. “We are discussing everything in a democratic manner,” she said. “The issue very often is less that of manpower and more of clarity in communication and in distribution of responsibilities. We are trying to make sure that doesn’t happen, that work is distributed fairly and everyone is involved in the decision making.” 

In terms of a concrete plan of action, Shelly said the first item on ISCAB’s docket was to onboard a treasurer, a public relations department  head, and all the ministers. “This will ensure that we have more stability in executive functioning,” Shelly explained. “While we’re discussing the working groups and other processes, we can only formally start on them after the ministerial appointments are made.” The ISCAB put out a call for applications for the roles of Public Relations Director, Interim Treasurer, and for all ministerial positions on the 15th of June. 

As per the policy, the ISCAB does not wield the full power of a formal student government, most notably those outlined in Clause 30 of the AUSG constitution. Accordingly, the ISCAB cannot make amendments to the Constitution, Governing Code, or Election Code. Additionally, the policy document lays out details for an “advisory council” (composed of one member nominated by the AUEC, one former AUSG cabinet member, and one former AUSG elected member), the role of which is chiefly to “provide institutional and procedural guidance” to the ISCAB. Part V of the policy document also illustrates the serious influence the university administration holds over the ISCAB. Under this framework, the university administration has the power to periodically review the interim body’s functioning, and holds final say on its “continuation, modification, or termination.”

Nevertheless, Shelly says that the ISCAB and its truncated composition does not “absolve it of its commitment to the student body.” Throughout her campaign, Shelly has been an advocate for more streamlined and responsive student support systems - a goal which she says she continues to stand by during her time on the ISCAB. “The ultimate goal is to create support systems that will carry through in the long term as well,” she explained. “That will take time, more policy work, and consistent follow up - but in the meantime, we’re doing our best to maintain open channels of communication and ensure that student concerns don’t go unaddressed.”

The AUEC policy document is emphatic in stating that the ISCAB is only a temporary measure, and lays out plans for a fresh electoral cycle in the Monsoon 2026 semester - following which, it claims, there will be “no further re-election or by-election process shall be conducted for the offices of President or General Secretary.” The Monsoon elections are expected to fill all currently vacant positions in the AUSG, with the dissolution of the ISCAB contingent on the successful election of either a President or a General Secretary. Should these positions remain vacant, the framework explicitly provides for more elected members to be added, but for the ISCAB to continue as an interim body until the next electoral cycle. An official statement from the AUEC in response to questions from The Edict explained that the commission “wanted to avoid a situation where the University repeatedly enters an electoral cycle without any functioning representative structure in place.” The statement also explained that this dissolution trigger was designed vis-à-vis the existing constitutional mechanisms for dealing with vacancies once either the President or General Secretary is elected. “Once either office exists, the constitutional framework can function again and the ordinary governance structure can resume,” explained the statement. 

Another interesting feature of the composition of the ISCAB is the ways in which it remains misbalanced. Shelly, along with Shrey Agarwal (UG ’29) and Masters council representative Anmol Agarwal are the only councilors to have contested as  independent candidates. By contrast, the remaining five members of the ISCAB -  Fathima Fida B (UG’29), Aditi Vadhavkar (UG’29), Anika Kumar (UG’29), Asewe Letro (UG’28), Aditya Deshakulkarni (UG’28) - all contested their positions under the Horizon banner. This division is highlighted by the ISCAB policy under which interim body decisions are to be made by simple majority. The AUEC statement conceded that “any body which functions through majority voting can theoretically reflect the political composition of its membership”, but also that this was true of any political body, and that the composition reflected the mandate of the electorate. The AUEC statement further contends that any risk of potential bias in the ISCAB’s decision making is tempered by its limited powers and temporary nature.

Ultimately, the ISCAB is meant to be temporary. Given the electoral crisis of the past cycle, it is also important to consider how the AUEC plans to mitigate similar challenges that may arise with the Monsoon elections. The AUEC noted that the circumstances under which these elections would be conducted would not be the same. “The Monsoon elections will be a full election cycle with students physically present on campus, a larger electorate because of the incoming batch, and much more time for campaigning and voter outreach,” read its statement to The Edict, which also reiterated the AUEC’s continuing commitment to voter awareness and outreach. 

Considering that a stop-gap measure like the ISCAB is now in place, it is worth questioning if the student body are likely to feel the consequences of an inconclusive election sharply enough for there to be mid-semester voter turnout. The AUEC statement acknowledged that this was “a fair concern,” but clarified that (in the commission's view) “the alternative [of having no functioning student governance structure for months] was worse.”

Plans for a more conclusive monsoon round of elections must be tempered by the fact that, under Part V of the ISCAB policy document, the university administration has the power to “review the feasibility, timing, and conduct of subsequent electoral processes in accordance with the Constitution, Governing Code, Election Code, and applicable administrative requirements.”  No such clause giving the administration final authority exists within either the Election Code or the AUSG Constitution. One can only surmise its role in the ISCAB policy as being justified due to the unprecedented timing of a monsoon electoral cycle. As for whether the student body itself feels strongly enough about the uncertainty surrounding its representation, that will be revealed only if and when they receive their third (and it would seem, final) chance to vote for the AUSG later this year.  

(Edited by Gauri Deshpande and Anamta Hussain)