The budget discussion session for the January – May 2025 semester was held on the 9th and 10th of February. The session commenced with the Speaker addressing the legislators regarding the previous semester’s deficit, which amounted to Rs. 23 lakh. It was decided that the individual deficits for each sphere would be accounted for in the ongoing semester’s budget. The Speaker also expressed disappointment over budgets being submitted just before the meeting, leaving insufficient time for a thorough review. To address absenteeism among executive committee members and legislators, a future date was set for online voting.
Before the session officially began, a representative of the Cultural Secretary raised concerns about pending reimbursements amounting to nearly Rs. 6 lakh. The Speaker clarified that these could not be processed as the overall expenditure had exceeded the proposed budget. He explained that the deficit could either be adjusted within other budget allocations or be budgeted separately. Although not resolved at that moment, this issue later became a key topic of discussion.
Due to the unavailability of the quorum during the session, the voting was resolved to be done at a later date. The first voting session was carried out on the 23rd of February. The results have been updated accordingly.
SLC, T5E, SECC
The Public Policy Club announced Prativad, a one-day event with the Chief Minister of Maharashtra as Chief Guest. SECC planned a visit to Raj Bhavan, but concerns were raised over the same panel being sent twice. It was clarified that the Governor’s office had requested this. The discussion on T5E’s budget primarily focused on the upcoming secretary roundtable and was resolved after some deliberation.
Update: A vote was taken on the 23rd of February to resolve the mentioned issues brought up during the budget meeting. The results were as such:
Results, SLC budget:
FOR: 33
ABSTAIN: 2
AGAINST: 0
VOTE NULLIFIED: 22
Budget passed.
Results, SECC Budget:
FOR: 33
ABSTAIN: 2
AGAINST: 0
VOTE NULLIFIED: 22
Budget passed.
Results, T5E Budget:
FOR: 34
ABSTAIN: 1
AGAINST: 0
VOTE NULLIFIED: 22
Budget passed.
AAS
The AAS budget overran the effective budget by over Rs. 3 lakh. With no one from the AAS Standing Committee to clarify any points, multiple contentions regarding the budget were raised but left unresolved. One of the primary concerns was the lack of detailed descriptions for the majority of planned events. Furthermore, several proposed expenditures were flagged as unnecessary. Requests for additional funding for items such as badges and treats during club events also came under fire. The Speaker was displeased with the proposed budget for ‘Finsights’, aimed at assisting students preparing for certain exams by sponsoring the study material. The Speaker argued that this model could be implemented by, for example, the Case Club, and that such expenditure should be borne by individual students and and not STACT funds.
Due to these issues, the AAS budget was put on hold and the Standing Committee was directed to address them and present a revised proposal.
Update: A vote was taken on the 23rd of February to resolve the mentioned issues brought up during the budget meeting. The results were as such:
Results:
FOR: 30
ABSTAIN: 4
AGAINST: 1
VOTE NULLIFIED: 22
Budget passed.
Cultural
To the astonishment of everyone present in the meeting, the Culturals budget presented amounted to a total of Rs. 40 lakh as opposed to their allocated Rs. 20 lakh. To make matters worse, no representative of the CulSecs was present to address the uproar, prompting frantic calls to summon them for an explanation. It was then brought to the Speaker’s attention that a new budget draft had been shared just fifteen minutes prior and that this new budget totaled Rs. 30 lakh, which included the Rs. 6 lakh deficit mentioned earlier in the meeting.
Still not able to process the total amount, this sparred a very heated discussion between the Speaker and the representatives of the Cultural Secretaries. The attention was shifted to the costs incurred by cultural contingents representing IITM at various events. The Christ University Parliamentary Debate (CUPD) team was singled out as an example, with their recent trip reportedly costing Rs. 30,000 for a 15-member contingent. The representatives defended the figure, claiming the Rs. 2000 being requested was a modest request compared to the actual expenses. They emphasized that only partial reimbursements were being sought, with participants often bearing out-of-pocket costs for many trips.
Not satisfied with the justification, the Speaker raised concerns that while individual costs may seem reasonable, approving such requests could set a precedent for other groups, prompting them to send their contingents to various competitions and demand similar allowances. The discussion intensified when it was revealed that the Quiz Club was requesting Rs. 2 lakh for the travel and accommodation of 40 members attending Nihilanth in Lucknow. The Cultural Contingent representative argued that this had been a long-standing tradition, with the team consistently achieving victories and bringing pride to both the club and the institute. However, the Speaker remained unconvinced, emphasizing that greater focus should be placed on the preparation phase rather than on travel, which incurs significant expenses.
To address these concerns, the Speaker proposed setting a predetermined percentage for all contingent expenditures. This would provide clarity on expected costs while ensuring alignment with available funds. The representatives defended their proposal, stating that the requested amount was based on previous years’ budgets, which have consistently been around Rs. 30 lakh.
Once again, the budget was put on hold so that the EC could discuss whether the excess budget could be accommodated or if it needed to be included in the budget again
Meanwhile, another contention emerged over the manner in which travel costs were being reimbursed. Attendees questioned the ethics of the reimbursement process, which allegedly involved reducing the number of flight tickets submitted. Some went as far as calling it a “borderline extortion of money”. It was clarified quickly that every contingent member was only reimbursed a 3rd AC’s worth of money for their travel but everyone was free to choose their mode of travel. As STACT doesn’t process partial payment and requests as few tickets as possible to simplify the reimbursement process, they collect flight tickets which amount to the total reimbursement value; the funds received are redistributed among the contingent members. The Speaker expressed dissatisfaction with this arrangement and stated that he would bring this matter up with STACT to improve the process.
Update: A vote was taken on the 23rd of February to resolve the mentioned issues brought up during the budget meeting. The results were as such:
Results:
FOR: 29
ABSTAIN: 4
AGAINST: 2
VOTE NULLIFIED: 22
Budget passed.
Sports
The sports budget also exceeded the proposed limit, but representatives quickly clarified that the Gymkhana spends on their behalf, not the SOC. As a result, they have neither control over the spending nor a way to track where the funds are allocated. This issue becomes particularly significant when the Gymkhana organizes events on behalf of the entire institute, further impacting the budget.
To address this, the Speaker proposed discussing the matter with DoST and called for a meeting between DoST and SOC to prevent such discrepancies from occurring in the future.
Update: A vote was taken on the 23rd of February to resolve the mentioned issues brought up during the budget meeting. The results were as such:
Results:
FOR: 27
ABSTAIN: 6
AGAINST: 2
VOTE NULLIFIED: 22
Budget passed.
IAR
The inertia brought on by the afternoon heat coupled with the sumptuous biryani meal was shattered with the Speaker vehemently arguing against the budget demands proposed by the IAR secretary. However, a greater issue soon arose when the question of budget overdue from the previous secretary’s tenure was brought to light.
It was brought to the SLC’s notice that a batch of team T-shirts, amounting to roughly 19,000/- INR, was purchased by the IAR team in the previous tenure, for which the vendor was still unpaid; furthermore, manifold discrepancies arose as it was soon revealed that the budget for the same had not been approved by the previous SLC on account of low turnout of members in its 9th meeting conducted on 19th April, 2024. The IAR team had then approached the then Dean (IAR); it was only then realised that the number of team members specified in the actual bill and the budget proposal presented to the SLC and the Dean (IAR) were indeed quite different, even though the price of each T-shirt had been altered to reflect the total amount.
The Speaker fumed over this exploitation of loopholes within the budget proposal and passing process, while also reflecting that any sort of unfairness met towards the vendor would not be tolerated, who should be ameliorated from this injustice as soon as possible. Moreover, it was also argued that the incumbent team should not have to face the consequences of lax activities perpetrated by members of the same team in a previous tenure.
It was suggested that the team approach the Dean as a solution to pay the vendor’s dues and present a report of the current tenure’s activities, along with a list of all the members in the team in the next SLC meeting scheduled on 7th March, 2025; the team was also asked to cut down on the team treat and T-shirt budget, with the speaker agreeing to contribute a sizeable amount from the SLC bursary to cover outstanding costs that still persisted.
HAS
It was after the contentious and hotly debated IAR budget that the HAS team was called upon to present its budget. A passionate discussion over the use of papers for inspections carried out by the various HAS teams, MMCC in particular, became a highlight of this budget as the Speaker raised questions on the amount spent on making copies of mess inspections. The MMCC team argued that an application has been developed to enable online entry of inspection data, but it was yet to be fully implemented owing to internet connectivity issues in the mess kitchens. It was suggested that inspections be conducted in a fully online manner as an environmentally sustainable practice, with the Speaker laying emphasis on how ‘Charity begins at home’.
Several other issues were also discussed even as the HAS budget was seen to be in a positive balance, in great contrast to other teams. These included suggestions to CMFGS to send periodic reports of their work to the GSB, waste management in Usha, winter reimbursement for MMCC members who stay back to inspect mess halls, the need of a high-powered committee to address waste management as proposed by the SusCom team and questions raised over costs associated with a website being developed by the HAS Executive Committee, punctiliously referred to by the Speaker as the ‘Students’ ombudsmen’.
It was at this moment that the entire hall erupted in unison against a demand made by the Executive Committee for funds to enable a ChatGPT subscription; solutions proposed by legislators included the use of the free version, along with exploring other platforms like Perplexity, now freely available to all IIT Madras students, and Deepseek.
SGS
The fervently discussed HAS budget was followed by the SGS budget; while budgets pertaining to IVil, whose representatives remained absent, Sajag and EML were passed without much contestation, Saathi and the events budgets stole the limelight in the SGS budget.
Within the events budget, it was Holi, and the ambrosial Thandai that is synonymous with the event, that garnered attention from the legislators. Should Thandai be served at OAT, where those engaging in the Holi revelry need respite from the Sun, while risking gross mismanagement, waste generation and stampede, or would it be better serving Thandai at hostels, which could perhaps dilute the significance of the festival that resides in its innate clarion call for the people to come together and rejoice? While this matter remained undecided, it was left upon the SGS Executive Committee to exercise its prudence in this regard.
Saathi was unanimously lauded for its role in the campus community, even as questions were raised on pending AMC payments, high frequency of events and their possible correlation to low turnout, and a lack of consensus between the Mitr and Saathi teams on where the staggering wellness fee money is routed. The Saathi budget was followed by a short yet bitter verbal spat between the Speaker and the Pragati core, a situation that was diffused with the Pragati core accepting the Speaker’s remarks regarding the team budget in order to resolve the issue and move on with the budget.
In spite of such moments of contention, which were but few and far between, the afternoon shift, by this point, had indeed become notable for the Speaker’s intelligent remarks on the ‘no quid pro’ model of the fee payment system and comments on upholding sustainability within student activities.
CoCAS
If there’s one thing the CoCAS Sphere and time management have in common, it’s that neither seem to have enough budget. This semester’s CoCAS budget session was the shortest in recorded history, not because of efficiency, but because the clock was quite literally against them. With the venue (the CCW Office Meeting room) only booked until 6 PM, and CoCAS starting at 6 PM, there was no time for the usual 3+ hour marathon debate that happens every other semester. Instead, the budget session was a cut to a yes & no negotiation rather than the traditional “explain why you’ve counted twice for screws and once for bolts” tug of war.
CFI (Center for Innovation), always the heavyweight in budget demands, faced a rather uphill battle this time. Their ask was Rs. 48 lakh, a Rs. 13 lakh overshoot from the semester’s allocation. The SLC’s immediate response was simple: “Either cut 13 lakhs or this budget isn’t passing.” CFI was suggested to seek external sponsorships to fully fund their competition teams. Finally, with the venue clock ticking away, the conversation was left hanging in an “either you fix it or we move on” limbo.
On the other hand, E-Cell had a much smoother ride, presenting its budget without major discrepancies. The legislators suggested reallocating unspent TechSoc budget from last semester to help plug CoCAS’s financial black hole in CFI.
As the budget of the CoCAS sphere wrapped up, the SGS (Students’ General Secretary) faced some unexpected heat. There were concerns raised over excessive SGS spending, pointing out that while SGS enjoys the same 18% budget split as CoCAS, one sphere struggles to meet even the bare minimum while the other seems to be basking in extravagant expenses. With limited time, the discussion was cut short.
Update: A vote was taken on the 23rd of February to resolve the mentioned issues brought up during the budget meeting. The results were as such:
Results:
FOR: 32
ABSTAIN: 2
AGAINST: 1
VOTE NULLIFIED: 22
Budget passed.
RAS
Research Affairs also had a rough time, with nobody from their standing committee showing up. The Research Affairs Secretary was visibly unamused and repeatedly voiced her disappointment: “The RAS wants to know what the standing committee has done until now. RAS standing committee lacks lustre, and it feels like there’s no coordination or proper communication within the team.”
Despite the lack of reinforcements, the secretary powered through. Key allocations that sparked a debate on the budget were giving honorariums for hands-on training workshops. She reasoned that tools like ANSYS needed proper training more than just lectures, and honorariums warranted financial incentives for the instructors. The legislators suggested asking the Dean (Research) to secure Rs. 90,000 for the TTJ booking for the workshops instead of expending the STACT budget, giving it some breathing room on this semester’s financial tightrope. In a final attempt to squeeze out some extra money, as the RAS Sphere still hadn’t exhausted its share of the STACT budget, an idea of passing leftover funds to CFI was floated about. The RAS, however, was having none of it as she immediately responded, “No, I have other events like the three-minute thesis proposal, which would require funds.”
With the venue time long expired, the budget was ratified in record time, avoiding any drawn-out disagreements. While RAS may have been short on standing committee members, it certainly wasn’t short on brutally honest commentary.
Update: A vote was taken on the 23rd of February to resolve the mentioned issues brought up during the budget meeting. The results were as such:
Results:
FOR: 28
ABSTAIN: 6
AGAINST: 1
VOTE NULLIFIED: 22
Budget passed.
The remaining voting results will be updated accordingly as and when they are released.
