The eighth SLC meeting of the academic year took place on 10th March 2025, marking an evening filled with intense discussions and decision-making.
Moderated Caucus (Constitutional Amendment Proposal & Impeachment Motion)
Derecognition and Restructuring of the International & Alumni Relations (I&AR) Students Sphere Bill
The session commenced with the Speaker taking to the floor to introduce the first agenda of the meeting: the Derecognition and Restructuring of the International & Alumni Relations (I&AR) Students Sphere Bill. This was followed by a highly anticipated reply speech by the I&AR Secretary, who stressed the need for an ad-hoc committee meeting and a report to the GSB before proceeding with the derecognition process. The Speaker asserted that it was a collaborative effort and that the discussions should involve the legislators and the standing committee with an intimation to the I&AR Secretary. The I&AR Secretary ardently requested for a comprehensive investigation and informed findings before proceeding with the derecognition process, and stressed the importance of consulting with current and ex-core team members to ensure every opinion is voiced.
Concerns about excluding members from the ad-hoc committee were raised by the Academic Affairs Secretary (AAS), to which the Speaker responded that the committee members are supposed to either be self-nominated or selected by him and that the standing committee could be expanded if further deliberation is required after initial discussions. It was stated that the derecognition motion was filed on grounds of the constitutional non-functionality of the sphere and the redundancy of its activities. The Speaker argued that the I&AR sphere and Secretary held significant relevance in 2016 but claimed that this was no longer the case, as the ACR Office and the Office of Communication and Public Relations now handled its functions. He noted that both the DoSt and the Dean (GE) had agreed on this point. It was stated that the ACR Office primarily requires student volunteers for two main activities: guiding exchange students and hosting alumni and other visiting stakeholders while explaining student happenings. The claim was that both tasks could be effortlessly managed by the Students’ General Secretary (SGS), under whom the body could be shifted to function.
The Speaker claimed that the Heritage Club, a body currently within the I&AR sphere, operates autonomously under the Heritage Centre, while IITMTV and Chennai36 could be integrated within T5E. It was also claimed that the Corporate Relations Cell (CRC) was proposed to be disbanded by the I&AR Secretary, with its functions to be taken over by AAS. The Speaker suggested that cultural immersion tasks for international students, currently managed by the World Culture Team (WCT) under GE, could instead be handled by the Culsecs in collaboration with teams under the SGS. It was further argued that ACR events requiring student engagement could be managed under the SGS.
In response, the I&AR Secretary cited the Leadership Lecture Series, an initiative under the Alumni Relations Cell (ARC), as an example of a program that, according to him, holds immense relevance for the student body. He argued that if the I&AR sphere did not conduct it, no other sphere would. A legislator countered that this argument could be applied to all other teams under I&AR, to which the Secretary responded by claiming that the reasoning for I&AR’s redundancy could similarly apply to other spheres as well.
Further complicating matters were comments from various deans. An official email from DoSt stated that he did not interact with I&AR, a claim the I&AR Secretary rebutted by alleging that DoSt did not respond to his calls or emails. Meanwhile, the Dean (GE) noted that the past four I&AR Secretaries had failed to correspond with him. Intense discussions ensued between ex-core team members and legislators on the redundancy of the sphere’s functions, and another argument raised was on whether it would be fair to dilute the secretaries’ time into whose spheres the inducted teams have been added.
The activities of the Global Engagement Council under the I&AR sphere were sorely defended by the ex-GE Core, who argued that WCT does more than serve the purpose of accommodating foreign students and also takes care of their onboarding, acclimatisation to culture, farewell and more; the team acts much like Saathi, but for foreign students, because of which the HAS team is not sufficient to take up their responsibilities. It was also added that experience in the team secures students opportunities with the partnered teams.
When the Speaker inquired whether research opportunities could be extended to foreign students through the UIR team under AAS, a positive response was given. However, when legislators pressed the I&AR Secretary on the number of Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) signed with foreign universities in the past year, his response—16—led to further scrutiny. When asked why AAS could not take over these responsibilities, he contended that the academic affairs sphere was already overburdened, whereas I&AR had been working toward a long-term vision. The Speaker countered that much of the outreach work was done by the faculty advisor, minimizing student involvement. The ex-GE core contended that alumni data, being prone to misappropriation by students, cannot be shared easily, hence the heavy involvement of admin.
The Speaker clarified that the motion pertained specifically to the future of the IARSC rather than the need for the I&AR teams themselves. He affirmed that the teams operating under this framework will continue to function, regardless of whether the overarching sphere remains in place. The I&AR Secretary proclaimed that his (the Secretary’s) responsibility is inter-team coordination, to which the legislators claimed that the work of an I&AR Secretary is severely dependent on advisors. He further argued that student involvement was crucial in bridging the gap between exchange students, alumni, and the institute. When questioned about the alumni donations secured during his tenure, a team member responded that ₹512 crore had been raised over the past ten years. A GE representative highlighted the BASH engagement program, which facilitates alumni pledging a portion of their first salary to the institute. The Speaker, branded this initiative as “call-center work”, asserting that it did not warrant the dedicated involvement of an I&AR Secretary.
The AAS recalled the assistance he had received from the I&AR Secretary in reaching out to various alumni-run companies for information, noting that such details were difficult to obtain directly from the administration. The SGS also weighed in, emphasising that alumni played a crucial role in funding various initiatives. He pointed out that the decline in hostel bonding over the past 10–15 years could negatively impact alumni contributions. The Speaker made a pointed remark, noting that hostel bonding had thrived before the introduction of an I&AR Secretary but had seemingly vanished since the position was created. His statement was met with laughter and disbelief from the legislators.
The AAS defended the I&AR sphere, arguing that it had a distinct vision that could not be easily dismissed. He pointed out that every top IIT had an equivalent body and insisted that IIT Madras should not be an exception. It was also revealed that the UIR team had made unsuccessful attempts to collaborate with the GE office, a task the I&AR Secretary could have facilitated more effectively. When pressed on why the collaboration had failed, the AAS vaguely attributed it to internal issues without further clarification.
Adding to the growing tension, the ex-GE core voiced frustration over the short notice given to prepare a defense for the retention of the sphere, arguing that it comprised three distinct councils, each with its own unique objectives. As tensions mounted, a legislator abruptly challenged the overarching vision of the I&AR sphere, sparking chaos in the room.
As the voting was set to commence, the RAS made a statement emphasising that the issue at hand was not solely about the potential removal of the sphere or the Secretary, but rather about providing the team a fair chance to represent themselves, and suggested that they be given additional time to prepare and present their case. The room responded with applause. Following this, the speaker called for a vote from the legislators on the grounds of extending the vote to a later date. The results of this vote were as follows:
For: 29
Against: 5
Abstained: 14
Nullified: 22
As a result, the motion was deferred to the next SLC meeting (held on the 17th of March), giving the I&AR representatives additional time to come up with their defense. This would also allow the committee arguing for the derecognition a further opportunity to solidify their case.
Impeachment of the I& AR Secretary (incumbent)
The chairperson of the investigative legislative committee presented a report summarising the findings from interviews with core team members of the I&AR sphere regarding the Secretary’s performance. The report highlighted concerns, including, among others, unavailability, trust issues, miscommunication, and alleged dereliction of duty by the I&AR Secretary.
As the Secretary delivered his response, the tension in the room was momentarily broken by an audible snort, briefly disrupting the proceedings. Following this, a member of the Nomination and Ratification Committee (NARC) raised concerns about the status of unratified I&AR core team members. Ultimately, the impeachment motion narrowly failed, falling just three votes short of the required threshold.
The results of the voting were as follows:
For : 40
Against : 6
Abstain : 2
Votes Nullified: 9
Motion failed to pass.
Despite the majority, impeachment mandates 75% of the total strength to vote in favour for the motion to pass. Out of the 57 members present in the legislature, only 48 were present at the meeting, out of which 40 voted in favour. Although this was 80% of the individuals present, due to the lack of quorum, the motion did not pass. A key point of contention was whether the impeachment should be determined by those present at the meeting or by the entire SLC. The nine absent legislators were asked to vote via email, but these were later invalidated to prevent potential misuse of online voting.
The vote also highlighted ambiguities in the Constitution regarding impeachment procedures. Some argued that requiring a three-fourths majority made impeachment virtually impossible, as SLC meeting attendance rarely exceeded 75%. While strict measures are necessary to prevent misuse of power, a lack of clarity in the rules led to confusion.
A committee was proposed to be formed so as to amend the Constitution to prevent any future misuse of power as well as provide clearly defined rules for any future impeachment motions.
Co-Curricular Affairs Secretary Recategorisation Bill: Due to time constraints, this bill was pushed to the next SLC meeting.
Hostel Secretaries Impeachment Procedure Amendment Bill
The discussion centered on the Executive Council (EC), particularly the HAS, and the need for more proactive engagement with wardens regarding underperforming secretaries. While the removal process for secretaries will continue to follow existing protocols, changes were introduced to streamline the initiation process. A proposal was also put forward to establish similar accountability teams at the hostel and department levels.
On the issue of legislative accountability, it was decided that any legislator who misses five meetings will be disqualified. Additionally, departments retain the authority to initiate impeachment proceedings against legislators as per the Constitution. However, concerns were raised about the complexity of the current process, with some calling for reforms to make it more efficient. The SECC and wardens will now be responsible for reviewing such cases to determine their validity.
Some legislators also voiced concerns over the potential for power imbalances, warning that individuals could rally support within hostels to sway decisions unfairly. While several issues were addressed, others remain unresolved, leaving room for further deliberation in upcoming sessions.
Moderated Caucus (Bill Presentation Hour)
Initiation of Ad-Hoc Committee on Hostel Council Position Optimisation and Amendment Bill
To ease the time crunch, the Speaker requested the Hostel Affairs Standing Committee to initiate the ad-hoc committee as soon as possible, with further discussions pushed to the next meeting.
SGAO Eligibility, Ratification, and De-Ratification Procedure Amendment Bill
The Speaker urged the council to send out a feedback form to collect opinions, setting the stage for a more in-depth discussion on the agenda in the upcoming SLC.
The discussions around Rulebook amendments for Hostel Affairs and Cultural Affairs began with the Speaker confirming quorum.
Rulebook Amendment: Hostel Affairs Secretary
The screening of the Sustainability Committee rulebook took place after the report presentation by the Core.
Rulebook Amendment: Cultural Affairs Secretary
The Cultural Affairs Secretary (Arts) took the floor, noting that the role of secretaries and core team members had so far been largely organizational, with little emphasis on the actual practice of the arts. He stressed the need to shift focus toward fostering artistic engagement within the sphere. The Cultural Affairs Secretary (Lit.) echoed this sentiment, arguing that IITM’s cultural scene could only thrive with a stronger emphasis on Sangam, leading to the proposal for dedicated Sangam cores. They pointed out that, until 2025, CulSecs and core teams had been deeply involved in preparations for Saarang from as early as September, often at the expense of other events like Inter-IIT and year-round cultural initiatives. The introduction of Sangam cores—staffed by individuals with relevant experience—was presented as a solution to ensure that all aspects of the cultural sphere, including Sangam events, Saarang, Inter-IIT, and other college fests, received the attention they deserved.
As the discussion unfolded, legislators raised questions about the feasibility of the proposed structure, particularly its efficiency and budgetary impact. The Secretaries defended their case, using IIT Bombay’s Mood Indigo as an example to illustrate how the restructuring would allow individuals to focus more deeply on their respective art forms. Concerns were also voiced about the persistent struggle to fill leadership positions. In response, the Secretaries pointed to the lack of sustained opportunities for students to engage with the arts, arguing that the new structure would not only address this issue but also encourage greater participation in the long run.
With time pressing on, the Speaker called for a swift conclusion amidst a flurry of persistent inquiries. One legislator, in a moment of humor, requested the CulSecs to “please” proofread the rulebook, and eventually, the motion passed with a solid 37 votes in favor.
The eighth SLC meeting ended with the decision to discuss the remaining agendas on 17th March 2025.
