BRCA events are usually rife with controversies. Of these none is so marked out as speculations of biased judgement. The neutrality of the judges has often been a point of contention and participants as well as spectators have seldom shied away from expressing their displeasure at the results and questioning their veracity. Whether their doubts were genuine or unfounded was an entirely different matter. The post-event opinion generally stated that the Club Secretary’s hostel received a favourable verdict, irrespective of the quality of their performance. There were instances where alumni from the Secretary’s own hostel were called to assess the fixtures. Owing to this the General Secretary, BRCA had come up with a rule mandating that judges should be chosen by mutual consent, and document containing their names be signed by all representatives, at least 48 hours prior to the event. The rule enforced would have ensured impartiality in these highly spirited competitions. While the cog wheels have been set in motion and clubs are busying themselves in organising their inaugural events for the current academic session. We find that the rule has not yet been followed in a single event out of those that have taken place so far. This speaks volumes about the carelessness of clubs and their representatives. The argument presented is that representatives were informed well in advance about their respective event’s judging panel. Since no objections were raised, a written acquiesce was deemed unnecessary. This is an open breach of a rule that was designed to completely do away with politics in RCA. Though, most people concede that the judgments delivered so far have been fair. There is still to see how long this negligence would continue unchecked.
-POOJA NATH