What’s next for Campus Security?

Introduction 

In May 2025, a 22-year-old outsider was found to have lived undetected on campus for almost three weeks, as reported by The Times of India. This occurred ironically, just after the administration had introduced new safety measures: 45-minute auto tokens, 11 PM delivery cutoffs, stricter ID checks, and random vehicle inspections. As a large, green expanse within a dense urban city, the campus’s welcoming atmosphere naturally draws interest from beyond its gates. While this welcoming atmosphere fosters an inclusive academic environment, the resulting accessibility can be exploited by unauthorised individuals, creating the security issues the new rules were intended to address.

The new security measures received mixed reactions from the campus community. Some improvements, such as stricter ID, were welcomed by us; others, like delivery cutoffs and tighter auto restrictions, sparked debate among students about the necessity and effectiveness. Campus security today presents a mixed picture: gate protocols have been strengthened considerably, but monitoring is inconsistent, with little oversight in hostels and open spaces.

The Main Gate Problem

The campus has three official entry points: the Main Gate, YP Gate, and the Lakeside Gate. Each of these gates is staffed by security personnel who ensure that credentials are verified and help maintain the safety and integrity of our campus. Most evenings, the routine at the gates appears orderly. Cars stream in, guards perform quick ID checks, delivery personnel are questioned, and cab drivers are asked to state their purpose. This system contains well-documented gaps that regular campus users have learned to navigate around when convenient.

It relies heavily on manual processes that are both inefficient and prone to human error. During peak hours, especially in the morning rush between 8-10 AM and evening hours where delivery traffic intensifies, guards must simultaneously verify IDs, log entries in physical registers, issue tokens to auto-rickshaws, and inspect delivery packages. This multitasking often leads to cursory checks where IDs are glanced at rather than properly verified. The handwritten entry logs, maintained in worn registers, are neither searchable nor cross-referenced, making it virtually impossible to track patterns or identify repeat violators.

The problem extends beyond busy periods and is rooted in inconsistent enforcement. While official protocols exist, their application can vary significantly depending on the individual guard or the shift. This means that someone denied entry during strict checks might be able to enter just a few hours later when the checks become more lenient. Moreover, the handwritten logs are not shared or reviewed in real-time, and there is no effective system to flag these repeated attempts. Furthermore, the manual system lacks resilience. During moments of high traffic when guards get overwhelmed, the focus often shifts from thoroughness to speed, causing the checks to become superficial.

The recent implementation of stricter checking protocols has exposed another troubling aspect of gate security: the lack of clear guidelines on what constitutes prohibited items. Multiple students reported incidents where delivery personnel were turned away for carrying condoms in their packages. When questioned about this specific case, the Chief Security Officer (CSO) stated that he was unaware of any such incidents.

“I haven’t received any such complaints,” he stated, clarifying that while “items like liquor and substance abuse materials are subject to random checks, there is no specific list of items which is to be stopped.” This ambiguity has led to arbitrary enforcement where individual guards make decisions not based on institutional policy but on their moral judgments. These lapses highlight the need for clear, written protocols defining exactly what items are prohibited.

The CSO informed Insight that a complete digital overhaul of the main gate is in the pipeline. “The new design will incorporate face scanners, biometrics, and fast tag-enabled vehicle registration with almost nil human intervention,” said the CSO. The planned system promises to address current inefficiencies by automating the entry process and creating comprehensive digital logs. However, when asked about the timeline, the GSHA informed Insight that full implementation would take “at least 5-6 more years.“

While digitisation offers clear benefits like enabling self-scanning of IDs and creating searchable entry records, Insight believes the administration’s approach raises several critical concerns. The proposed system does not address fundamental behavioural issues that compromise security today. If guards continue to wave people through during rush hours, even the most sophisticated biometric scanners become irrelevant. The institute’s track record with digital implementation also raises questions about its ability to deliver this on time.

Insight believes that advanced biometrics may take years, but basic digital logs could be implemented immediately to make entry records searchable and trackable. Simple measures like interim digital visitor management systems could substantially improve security within months rather than years. The administration’s commitment to a comprehensive long-term solution is commendable, but the extended timeline highlights an opportunity to implement practical interim measures that could meaningfully improve security while the larger system is being developed.

Beyond the Gates

Securing the official entry points is only half the battle; the campus’s vast and varied perimeter presents a more complex security problem. These range from compromised sections of fencing and unmonitored service areas to buildings that sit on the edge of the campus, creating unofficial points of entry. Insight found that these loopholes are often well-known and exploited.

The campus post office, for example, remains one of the most frequently cited of these loopholes. With one side directly accessible from outside the institute, it functions as a quiet entryway where movement is rarely monitored. Several students admitted to having entered through this point without challenge. The administration has acknowledged this loophole, with the CSO confirming during our interview that

“Access to the post office from the rear side is going to be permanently closed.“

Insight investigated the fence near the Padmavati temple area over three weeks and observed that parts of the fence had been taken off, creating an easy access point into campus. The CSO responded to this by saying:  

Further up north, Sameer Hill stands as a well-known entry point, where, despite fences being reinforced multiple times, they are regularly broken. A former member of the Hostel Affairs Council who has worked on security with the administration described it as a cycle of “repair and re-entry” that has continued for years. The Vigilance Head acknowledged this persistent issue, explaining that people use pliers to cut through existing fencing, which has necessitated plans for stronger barriers.

A security staffer has also confirmed to Insight that repeated instances of pipes and fence parts being stolen contribute to the weakness of these barriers. While the administration claims to be working on comprehensive perimeter security and has taken action in some cases, such as sealing a known entry point near Hostel 15, the recurring nature of new breaches suggests that such fixes are often reactive rather than part of a permanent strategy.

Once You’re In, You’re Invisible

There is no reliable mechanism to track how long visitors remain or when they leave. Exit data is not collected, and no central database links gate entries to hostel records. This creates a critical enforcement gap for existing regulations: outsiders are required to leave campus by 10 PM, but there is no system in place to monitor compliance, and awareness of this rule remains low among both visitors and residents.

The challenge of tracking visitors becomes acute during major campus events. Academic conferences and large-scale fests like Mood Indigo, Techfest, and E-Summit bring thousands of external participants to campus, creating logistical complexities that strain existing security infrastructure. During these periods, the sheer volume of legitimate visitors makes it nearly impossible to distinguish between authorised guests and those who may overstay or cause disturbances. Event organisers focus primarily on managing programmes and accommodating participants, while security personnel struggle to maintain oversight across multiple venues simultaneously. 

The CSO acknowledged this gap and outlined digital reform plans. “The guest pass system will be digitised with defined departure times, and automatic alerts will be sent to hosts when guests overstay,” the CSO explained. “We expect residents to be responsible enough to see that their guests have left the campus,” adding that this indicates a shift toward shared accountability. Insight’s investigation revealed that “a digital guest management system was ready for implementation three years ago, but the then-Dean SA scrapped it, citing security concerns,”. However, until any system is implemented, the current approach remains vulnerable to abuse.

This tracking failure is apparent within the hostels, which have become a blind spot for campus security. The issue is compounded by lax hostel entry protocols and multiple unofficial entry points. During our investigation, Insight identified several unguarded access routes to hostels, including fences around hostel complexes that can be easily crossed, and pathways that bypass official checkpoints entirely.

Guards stationed at official hostel entrances are often unable to identify unauthorised campus residents and frequently fail to maintain vigilant oversight. Insight observed guards sleeping on duty at multiple hostels, particularly during late-night hours when unauthorised entries are most likely to occur. The combination of untrained personnel, inconsistent supervision, poor vigilance, and numerous unmonitored entry points means that outsiders and alumni can stay illegally in rooms, sometimes for months, without detection.

The problem runs deeper than isolated incidents. The Vigilance Head acknowledged that various students are overstaying, describing it as a widespread pattern affecting multiple hostels simultaneously. Multiple sources within hostel councils revealed that alumni often maintain rooms for years after graduation through a network of current students who either allow them to stay out of friendship, hostel council connections, or sometimes in exchange for financial incentives. 

He further added that students rarely report these overstayers, either because they benefit from the arrangement or fear social backlash for snitching on seniors who still wield influence through their networks.

A student also told Insight that an unauthorised person, who was an acquaintance of the Hall Manager living in their wing in Hostel 5. When the wing confronted the stranger about it, he got hostile and threatened the students.

Recurring reports detail outsiders and alumni staying illegally in rooms for extended periods, causing disruptions and going undetected. A former hostel general secretary told Insight that,

“From my experience, some of the most persistent misconduct involves the hall and mess managers. It is a well-known practice that through a private arrangement, an outsider can be quietly allotted a room, bypassing all official procedures.“

While approaches like regular hostel audits, cross-referencing room occupancy with enrollment databases, and digital check-in systems for guests could provide needed oversight, such measures face inherent challenges in implementation. These solutions would create accountability and transparency, but they require consistent enforcement and student cooperation, both complicated by the convenience-security tensions on campus. The vigilance head claimed to have taken action against multiple overstayers, yet these actions appear to be reactive responses to specific incidents rather than systematic detection. 

The Convenience-Security Tradeoff 

The security challenges on campus are not solely administrative failures but are rooted in a fundamental conflict between protocol and convenience. This investigation reveals a system weakened from two sides: a campus community that often prioritises personal convenience by bending rules for gate entry or guest registration, and an administration that can impose blanket restrictions disconnected from the practical realities of student life. When residents look for shortcuts and the administration creates rules that invite circumvention, the security framework is mutually compromised.

Students frequently contribute to security vulnerabilities through their choices, often in response to restrictions that they feel impinge on their campus freedom. It is a common sight to see students arguing with guards to grant them entry when they forget their ID cards. Some also admit to using unofficial entry points to bypass queues or stricter checks at the main gates. One student described how he used the post office entrance,

“The YP Gate security didn’t allow me to come in without my ID. I just walked around the  back and entered through there instead.” 

This behaviour extends to guests, who are often brought onto campus without following any formal registration procedures, rendering guest logs incomplete. Students also use vehicles to transport unauthorised individuals past security checkpoints, as vehicles often receive less scrutiny than pedestrians during busy periods. For many students, these workarounds represent not just convenience but a resistance to what they perceive as excessive control over their movements in a space they consider their home.

This year’s convocation provided a clear example: initially, strict measures were enforced at the main gate to prevent alumni from entering hostels without official guest accommodation. However, late at night, when a large number of graduating batch students gathered outside the main gate seeking entry, the gate security allowed them in. 

This culture of convenience directly enables security breaches by third parties, creating situations where non-residents can operate on campus without accountability. The Chief Security Officer explained how this dynamic allows delivery personnel, for example, to bypass the rules of professional conduct they are expected to follow:

“[We have] a recurring issue with delivery personnel who remove their authorised uniforms after entering campus to merge with the rest of the crowd. This practice often correlates with rash driving, excessive honking, and overspeeding, as these individuals no longer feel bound by the professional standards expected of authorised delivery personnel.“

On the other side of this tradeoff, the administration’s policies can sometimes seem disconnected from the practical realities of campus life. The 11 PM delivery cutoff exemplifies this disconnect. In justifying the restriction, the Vigilance Head stated that “there are canteens every 100 meters.” However, this overlooks the fact that canteen food quality, operating hours, and dietary options often don’t meet student needs. When security measures fail to account for legitimate requirements, they inadvertently encourage the very circumvention they seek to prevent.

The introduction of e-shuttles and rickshaws to compensate for restricted access to automobiles represents a more nuanced approach, acknowledging that the previous auto restrictions, while addressing exploitation by drivers, created legitimate transportation gaps that needed to be filled. However, the effectiveness of such compensatory measures depends on their adequacy in meeting the actual needs of students.

Ultimately, effective security requires a partnership between the institution and its residents. When students prioritise convenience by bending rules, and the administration imposes restrictions that don’t adequately consider user needs, the security framework is mutually weakened. The result is a system whose integrity is continually compromised by the very community it is designed to protect, resulting in a persistent gap between security on paper and security in practice.

Proven solutions to some of the problems mentioned here are certainly available. Other large colleges have successfully implemented facial recognition and digitisation, demonstrating these systems are already operational elsewhere. However, the path forward for our campus is not just about better technology or stricter rules. Ultimately, it is about fostering a culture of shared responsibility, where security is recognised as a partnership between the institution and the community it is designed to protect.