The sixth SLC meeting of the academic year and the first meeting of 2025 was conducted on January 21, 2025. The SLC Speaker inaugurated the meeting with the INA anthem in honour of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s 128th birth anniversary, followed by the National Anthem. A half-hour documentary on his life was screened before moving on to the agenda for the day.
General Discussion (Unmoderated Caucus)
Fee Payment Deadlines
The Speaker addressed the issue of fee payment deadlines and spoke about his recent meeting with the Dean of Students (DoSt), during which he proposed delinking mess fees from the institute and hostel fees. However, DoSt explained that since hostel accommodations are tied to IITM enrollment, clearing institute fees is essential. The Dean cited challenges in managing hostels and academic administration and reminded students that bank loan facilities are available for those facing financial difficulties.
The Speaker suggested providing students with a grace period of 2–3 months, similar to the previous year, to help parents arrange funds. He also raised the idea of fee instalment payments, but it was noted that the portal does not currently support such options.
The Speaker concluded by announcing that mess services for all registered students would continue, provided they cleared their fees by January 23.
M.Tech Representation
The Speaker noted that the M.Tech representation bill proposed by the SEC might not take effect for the upcoming SGE 2025. He suggested a constitutional amendment to address M.Tech legislators’ representation before the end of the current tenure, enabling its implementation in the following year. He also proposed including M.Tech legislators on the CPC or any relevant body to improve placement opportunities for M.Tech students.
Election of Members – Financial Accountability Committee (FAC)
Prakhar Maheshwari, a former Physics department legislator, presented his application with key agendas for discussion. Concerns were raised about his graduation in July; he assured us of his commitment to achieving progress within the four-month FAC tenure. The Speaker suggested that the FAC obtain expenditure reports from STACT for better accountability. After deliberation, Prakhar was elected as an FAC member with majority support.
Deepak Venkatesan, the second applicant, emphasized his experience as a Chartered Accountant and its relevance to FAC. Concerns about bill verification were addressed by his proposal to review the books of accounts to detect unusual expenses. The Speaker suggested the upcoming STACT workflow portal could address current gaps in financial oversight. After discussion, Deepak was also elected as an FAC member with majority support.
Rulebook Amendment: Standing Committee – Academic Affairs (Placement Team)
Siddarth from the IDDD Placement Core team proposed a grading split of 25–75% for selecting placement core members. The 25% would account for past performance during their tenure, while 75% would be based on the application process. This proposal aimed to motivate existing members to actively contribute to the placement cell, particularly during Phase 2 of placements.
The Speaker emphasized the need for objective selection metrics to evaluate the 25% weightage for past performance fairly and asked Siddarth to refine the proposal based on members’ feedback.
Discussion on P Grade Issue
A resolution was proposed to address the disadvantages of P grades on students’ eligibility for PoRs (Positions of Responsibility). The current rule disqualifies students with a P grade from applying for PoRs entirely.
The proposed resolution stated that students who obtained P grades two semesters before the application submission date would only be ineligible for Tier 0 and Tier 1 PoRs. The Speaker clarified that students receiving a P grade during their tenure would not lose their positions.
Research Excellence Award (REA)
The RAS Executive Committee discussed the need for clear criteria to evaluate research publications. Factors such as impact factors and journal quartiles were highlighted, with members emphasizing the variation in standards across departments.
The Speaker proposed a follow-up meeting with all Research Legislators (RLs) to finalize evaluation criteria and ensure proper documentation. A finalized document would then be submitted by the Standing Committee on Research Affairs for approval at the next SLC meeting.
Budget Discussion
The Speaker announced the budget session for February 7–8, urging timely submissions to avoid issues seen in the recent past, such as last-minute approvals and extended sessions. Complaints were raised about some standing committee members’ lack of participation in budget reviews.
Suggestions included holding preliminary meetings with concerned members before the main session and establishing clear guidelines for prioritizing issues during discussions. Additionally, it was proposed that regular meetings be conducted with all stakeholders to resolve issues proactively.
With that, the sixth SLC meeting came to an end.
