I recently found myself in the midst of a rather confounding situation at one of the best law institutions in the country- one that made me question the very essence of democracy- wherein the fundamental principle of an equitable election had been drastically deviated from. I am a second-year law student, who set out to contest for the prestigious position of a member of the Literary and Quizzing Committee. My journey through this maze of student elections has left me pondering over the sanctity of democratic processes itself.
Due to an unforeseen emergency (the untimely death of my grandfather), I had to rush back home and so, I was unable to be present physically for these elections. However, I held my spirit high and decided not to drop out. To ensure transparency, I sought permission to appoint my friend to count the votes on my behalf and the volunteering faculty present in the classroom gave permission for the same. I also wrote an email to the Student Bar Council (SBC) election Mail ID but I received no reply. Meanwhile, the votes got counted and getting twenty votes, I was declared the winner.
After the entire process was over, the concern regarding my absence was raised and subsequent disqualification after the declaration of the results was resorted to. I want to raise five fundamental points:
Inconsistent Faculty Response: In a rather surprising turn of events, the faculty members, who were overseeing the election and entrusted with ensuring fairness, granted their approval for the arrangement of my friend representing me without a hint of hesitation. What made this situation all the more puzzling was that no one raised objections during the voting process. In fact, I was declared the winner after the votes were counted. It was only later that the objection to my absence surfaced, resulting in my disqualification. This inconsistency in the faculty’s response left me in a state of bewilderment. After all, the faculty members, who serve as guardians of the democratic process, initially approved the proxy arrangement, only to backtrack on their decision once the game had been played. This delayed objection called into question their dedication to upholding a fair electoral process.
Procedural Concerns: Procedures, it seems, played a central role in my electoral journey. The institution’s commitment to adhering to prescribed protocols is indeed commendable. However, it’s intriguing that the institution’s own Constitution (the General Procedure for Elections, clause (a)) does not provide clear guidelines for addressing candidates’ absence during elections. Additionally, the timing of the election itself didn’t align with the institution’s own stipulations. The constitution specifies that elections should be conducted within the first three weeks of the semester for first-year students. In my case, the election took place six weeks after the semester had commenced. Had the “procedure” been followed, I would have been the rightly elected candidate because I was present physically on campus for the first three weeks. It’s a contradiction that raises an eyebrow, especially when procedure is being emphasised. It’s worth noting that the Constitution doesn’t offer a clear procedure for handling the absence of candidates, creating a puzzling grey area.
Representation and Democracy: The fundamental purpose of elections is to give an opportunity to the students to elect their own representatives. The most pivotal moment in my journey was the moment when I, the people’s choice, was unceremoniously removed from the narrative. My supporters, full of hope and trust, were left questioning the very principles of democracy they hold dear. It was a moment of profound irony, as the institution’s commitment to these values seemed to falter.
Unjust Allocation of Votes: The decision of the disqualification of the candidate with the highest number of votes only to crown the candidate with sixteen votes as the winner is completely arbitrary and unjustified. It’s a twist so baffling that it would fit right into a Kafkaesque narrative. The four contenders received votes in the following order: twenty, sixteen, fifteen, and nine. By not redistributing my votes, the institution overlooked the fundamental tenets of fairness and equitable representation. Had I been disqualified earlier, the twenty votes that I received could have been proportioned among the other three candidates in any ratio with the possibility of even the candidate with the lowest number of votes winning.
Absence Should Not Override Democratic Process: My absence was detrimental to my interests itself and should not have affected the election procedure. Due to me not being physically present, I lost the opportunity of being able to vote for myself which is inimical to my candidature and so, such a minor procedural issue should not disregard the democratic election procedure altogether. This instance is the epitome of a classic tragedy of errors where the one most directly affected by the situation ends up with the least say.
This incident has been a perplexing journey through the labyrinth of student elections and in my opinion, it should be brought to the notice of every student who truly aspires to get elected for any such post. In this esteemed institution known for its legal education, the message should be clear: democracy isn’t just a process; it’s a way of life. Moreover, giving priority to a minor procedural flaw even in such grave circumstances is nothing but deplorable. It’s my hope that this journey serves as a lesson, prompting the institution’s representatives to take the necessary actions to ensure that future elections are conducted in a manner that truly reflects the spirit of democracy, a process that’s fair, just, and free of the puzzling twists and turns that I encountered.
-Manav Pamnani, year II