“Where are the NoCs?”: Refused NoCs, Ultimatum to AUEC

The Registrar’s Office informed several candidates seeking to run in the upcoming Ashoka University Student Government (AUSG) elections that it was unable to provide them with a No Objection Certificate (NoC), a prerequisite for candidature, via email at 7:11 p.m. on 21st March.

The Edict could not verify the number of candidates who were refused NoCs at this time.

Both AUSG and United Students’ Front (USF) in separate statements allege that the inability to issue NoCs to a few candidates limits student autonomy and sets a “dangerous precedent” of the administration interfering in student elections.

The Registrar’s Office, in an email correspondence with The Edict, wrote, “We did not mention that the NoC was either cancelled or rejected to the students. We are unable to issue the NoC at this time”. They asked us to direct our questions to the Ashoka University Election Commission (AUEC) for more information.

In a separate development on 21st March, the Registrar’s Office issued a “show cause ultimatum” to the AUEC, confirmed Muhammed Razin (UG ‘27), Chief Election Commissioner.

Timeline of Events

According to the USF’s statement released on 22nd March, Husain applied for her NoC on 19th March and followed up with the Registrar’s office thrice. On 21st March, the AUEC extended the deadline for the nomination of candidates.

Soon after, Husain and four other candidates—Ahana Walanju (UG ‘26), Sahej Kishan (UG ‘26), Ayush Solapurkar (UG ‘27) and Trisha Iyer (UG ‘28)—received the same email from the Registrar’s Office at 7.11 p.m intimating them that the Office was “unable to issue NoCs at this time”.

None of these candidates have any known prior disciplinary incursions, according to the USF’s statement.

Independent candidates such as Maryam Andleeb (UG ‘28) have also confirmed to The Edict that they received the email refusing to grant an NoC at the same time. According to the USF’s statement, candidates who requested a NoC before Husain’s follow-up “received their NoC’s promptly”.

Only the Registrar’s Office has the power to issue or deny NoCs. Yet, candidates were directed to the Ashoka University Election Commission (AUEC) to “know more details”.

The template of the email that was sent to candidates.

Walanju clarified to The Edict that these were not outright rejections of the NoCs. She said that the initial emails from the Registrar’s office failed to clarify that their NoCs were being withheld.

Hussain told The Edict that the Registrar emailed her on 22nd March stating that her NoC was withheld after the release of the USF’s statement. She expressed her frustration with the lack of transparency and was sceptical of the administration’s request to cooperate with the AUEC. 

AUSG and USF’s statements 

In an email to the student body and a statement released on Instagram, the United Students’ Front (USF) alleged that this is “an attempt to cover up the targeting” of USF candidate Insha Husain (UG'26) and deemed the decision to be exclusionary.

In a separate statement, AUSG demanded that the Registrar’s Office clarify the reasons for not granting NoCs to certain students, who have previously held positions in the AUSG, maintained a strong academic record and have no known infractions.

AUSG mentioned that Ashoka University’s Policy on Disciplinary Records for Purposes of NoC,  which states, “in instances where the NoC is denied, the Registrar will indicate the reason for the denial to the student”, contradicts the Registrar’s lack of justification to not issue NoCs in these cases.

Election Commission: Ultimatum and Reactions 

In an interview with The Edict, Razin said that the AUEC acknowledges the seriousness of these concerns and addressed them via email.

“If prospective candidates felt they were unfairly targeted, the matter should be investigated accordingly.” Having said that, Razin upheld that the situation should not be interpreted as a “rejection” but rather a temporary inability to issue the NoCs at the time.

Razin clarified that the AUEC is facing a communication gap with the Registrar’s office. “The timeline of events,” he said, “should be discussed with the relevant authorities as we [the AUEC] have no stake in that.”

Razin also said that the AUEC reverted to the Registrar’s show-cause notice the same day, and their reply is now “under the Registrar’s consideration.” They expect to hear back on Monday with a “constructive solution.” The ultimatum here is to show cause as to why “the AUEC should not be dissolved because of some of the procedural inaccuracies they have mentioned,” said Razin.

The procedural details due to which the ultimatum was issued to the AUEC are not available to The Edict at the time of publishing this article.

“Our primary concern is to make sure the election happens on time,” Razin said. If elections do not proceed according to the given timeline, they will be pushed to exam week. This violates Section 11.1 of the Election Code and will mean the elections cannot be carried out this semester.

(Edited by Madhumitha GI, Fatema Tambawalla and Srijana Siri)