Student polls in Guwahati face disputes over nominations and results, raising questions about campus democracy
Imagine campaigning for weeks, convincing your classmates to vote for you, preparing for the big day, only to find your nomination rejected, your election postponed or your victory challenged. Now imagine being a student who simply wants to vote, but ends up waiting for hours because the counting has been put on hold.
ALSO READ: GMCH Students’ Hitchhiking Struggle Continues on Narakasur Hill
For students across several colleges and universities in Guwahati, student union elections this year have been about much more than choosing their next president or general secretary. They have become a series of disputes over nominations, eligibility, election results and the decisions of authorities. And somewhere between the protests, postponed polls and disputed results, one question deserves attention: what is happening to campus democracy?
Student elections are supposed to be a relatively straightforward exercise. Candidates file nominations, election committees scrutinise them, students cast their votes and the results are declared. There will always be disagreements in a competitive election, but when procedural disputes repeatedly overshadow the actual voting process, it becomes necessary to examine what is going wrong.
Is it a problem with the rules? Are election committees failing to communicate their decisions? Is political interference playing a role? Or are several of these factors coming together to create an atmosphere of distrust?
Recently at K.C. Das Commerce College, the controversy began before students could even reach the voting stage.
Students alleged irregularities in the scrutiny of nomination papers, claiming that the preliminary list included around 13 portfolios while the final list contained only 10. While they acknowledged that candidates could be disqualified for failing to meet attendance requirements, they questioned rejections allegedly linked to discrepancies in parental signatures.
The students demanded that the existing scrutiny list be cancelled and the nomination process conducted afresh. They also claimed that similar concerns had emerged during the previous year's election, when several nominations were rejected and candidates reportedly won key posts uncontested.
The election was subsequently postponed, with the college citing unavoidable circumstances and a pre-scheduled sessional examination.
Speaking with a candidate, he said, “the parents were called to the college to address the signature issue. However, even after they appeared in person and signed fresh verification documents, the nominations were allegedly not restored. And now it has been postponed. This is affecting our mental health. We were planning everything but now everything is on hold with no further details.”
Scrutiny is an essential part of any election. But when candidates question how it is conducted, the process needs to be transparent enough to demonstrate that the rules are being applied consistently.
When the counting itself becomes a controversy at Gauhati University, the uncertainty surrounding the Post Graduate Students' Union election extended beyond the nomination stage.
The General Secretary and Social Service Secretary elections were deferred following complaints concerning the nomination process. The dispute involved Nayan Akash Bora, whose candidature came under scrutiny over allegations that he was pursuing two regular Master's degrees simultaneously at the university.
The university's Grievances Redressal Cell decided that the matter required further examination and proposed an independent inquiry into the cases involving Bora and another candidate for Social Service Secretary.
The dispute also affected the counting process. Students questioned the delay, raised concerns about the security of ballot boxes and challenged the handling of the election. Consequently, the candidate who was declared earlier as non-contestant winner, Madhurjya Plaban Talukdar was declared again as the General Secretary.
One of the students said, “without any notice he was declared as the winner randomly at night 12 AM but we have filed a case and a hearing is going on.”
There is a legitimate reason to examine eligibility complaints before declaring a result. But when such disputes affect the larger election schedule, the absence of a swift and clearly communicated resolution can deepen mistrust.
At Handique Girls' College, another dispute emerged after the presidential election results were announced. The AASU-backed candidate, Jimpi Kalita was reportedly declared the winner initially, before the election committee subsequently announced the victory of SMSS-backed candidate Violina Phukan.
A recount was conducted, after which Phukan was again declared the winner, reportedly with a different margin. The result triggered protests by Kalita's supporters, while supporters of the declared winner celebrated on campus. Police had to reach the college as tensions escalated.
In this case, the central issue was not simply who won. It was whether students and competing candidates had sufficient confidence in the process through which the result was determined.
Across these institutions, the disputes have occurred at different stages of the electoral process. Yet they share one striking feature: questions about procedure have increasingly become questions about credibility.
It is difficult to discuss student elections in Assam without examining the relationship between campus politics and larger political organisations.
Student bodies often have ideological affiliations, political connections or working relationships with established parties. Their leaders may eventually enter mainstream politics, while campus elections can become spaces where political organisations build influence among young voters.
This does not automatically make student politics unhealthy. Political engagement can help students understand public policy, develop leadership skills and learn how to organise around shared concerns.
Where political interests are involved, even routine administrative decisions can be interpreted through a partisan lens. A candidate's disqualification may be viewed as an attempt to eliminate a rival. A change in the declared result may be seen as evidence of favouritism. A delayed decision can invite speculation about who benefits from the uncertainty.
However, suspicion is not proof. The controversies at K.C. Das Commerce College, Gauhati University and Handique Girls' College do not, by themselves, establish that political parties interfered in the election processes. That would require evidence of specific intervention or pressure.
Are election committees operating independently? Are decisions being made strictly on the basis of written rules? Can candidates from different groups expect the same treatment?
These are questions that institutions should be able to answer through transparent procedures rather than leaving students to draw their own conclusions.
Political interference may be one possible factor, but it is not the only explanation.
Sometimes, the problem may lie in unclear election guidelines, inconsistent scrutiny, weak grievance-redressal systems or inadequate planning. Rules that leave room for interpretation can lead to disputes, especially when they concern attendance, eligibility, documentation or withdrawal of nominations.
Speaking with a union member of KC Das Commerce College, said that, “Generally college electors follow the Lyngdoh commission but our college has its own commission which should not be followed. Why are such initiatives taken by the authorities? We want the answer from them and therefore these disputes are happening around.”
The timing of grievance redressal also matters. If objections are examined only after nominations have been rejected or voting has concluded, the consequences can extend far beyond the original complaint.
A stronger system would establish clear eligibility criteria in advance, publish specific reasons for disqualifications, provide candidates with an opportunity to respond and set firm deadlines for resolving complaints.
Another student from Gauhati University said, “The responsibility does not rest with college administrations alone. Student organisations and candidates must also respect established procedures, present evidence when raising objections and avoid escalating disagreements into confrontations that disrupt academic life.”
When elections repeatedly become embroiled in disputes, students may begin to see campus politics as a contest of influence rather than ideas.
The controversies do not prove that campus democracy has failed, nor do they establish a common cause behind every disputed election. But they make a strong case for institutions to examine how their election processes are designed, implemented and communicated.
When the nomination list becomes a controversy, the counting becomes a confrontation and the result becomes another source of uncertainty, who is responsible for restoring students' faith in the process? And if campus elections are meant to prepare young people for democracy beyond their college gates, what kind of democratic lesson are they learning today?
