By Mahmood Alam
A bench headed byChief Justice of India (CJI)Hon’bleMr. Justice TS Thakur was hearing a matter whether Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), a central university, was bound to follow UGC regulations with regard to the appointment of Vice Chancellor or not. This matter is in no way related to AMU’s minority character; an issue which is pending in another bench of the Supreme Court.
Two important Congress party leaders – Mr.KapilSibal and Mr.SalmanKhurshid – were present in the CJI’s court on Monday. While Mr.Salman Khurshid was representing AMU VC Mr.Zameeruddin Shah, Mr.KapilSibal was there just to hear the arguments since he is a former HRD minister.
The case was about to be adjourned as the court wanted some more details from petitioner’s counselMr.PrashantBhushan,Mr.Salman Khurshid stood up to express his opinion. Though the matter was being adjourned for the day, he insisted to advance his arguments and submitted that since the issue of AMU’s minority character was pending in another bench, this case of the appointment of vice chancellor should be seen in that perspective. “We will have to see if UGC regulations are binding on AMU as a minority institution and if yes then to what extent,” said Mr.Salman.
Mr.Sibal, who was present in the courtroom, moved to make his observations. Though he was not related to the case in anyway, he still stood up to address the court. Pressing upon the Congress party’s position, he stressed that the UPA government was in favour of minority character, but this government was having a different view due to some “apparent reasons”. This was enough to provoke the Attorney General who went on to explain his govt’s position on AMU’s minority character.
The issue whether AMU should follow UGC’s prescribed eligibility criterion with regard to the appointment of vice-chancellor was converted into the minority and non-minority issue. Interestingly, it was not the Centre or the petitioner opposed to AMU’s minority character messed up the issue, but the VC’s lawyer himself.
An impression is being created that AMU is not willing to accept the UGC regulations in the name of minority character. This may hit AMU badly in its long drawn battle of minority character.
As per UGC regulations of 2010, a vice chancellor shall be a professor with ten years of teaching experience. Vice-ChancellorMr.Zameeruddin Shah happens to be from an army background without a Ph.D degree. However, the Allahabad high court found no anomaly in his appointment as the UGC regulations do not seems to be mandatory in non-teaching posts such as that of the vice chancellor. This judgement is now under challenge in SC.
Taking respite from the high court judgment, AMU went ahead in starting the process of appointing Mr.Shah’s successor. Two of the five candidates selected by AMU’s Executive Council (EC) again happen to be non-academic without a PhD degree. The university had to quash the panel of five candidates selected by the EC just because a national newspaper pointed out that two of the selected candidates voted for themselves and thus face disqualification.
It is an irony that a university which claims to be centre of higher learning had to reconsider its crucial decisions under pressure from a national daily.
Unfortunately, this is not ignorance of law. This is complete disregard for law. Corrosion of morality. A decision based on sheer manipulation with a sinister design to accommodate the less qualified and less competent people. Such decisions are bound to collapse with slightest of exertion. By such lobbying and internal ghettoization, AMU bangs its doors on more deserving people.
In the current run-up to the appointment of Shah’s successor, AMU chose to ignore the suggestion by one of its most prestigious alumnus, former vice chancellor and Vice President of India His Excellency Mr.Hamid Ansari. Mr.Ansari suggested AMU EC should form a Search Committee which would screen a number of candidates and then put a list of names for voting in EC. He also called for a more transparent approach in place of the present closed door policy of the EC. While the process of selection of vice chancellors in most universities starts by a search committee of eminent people, it is only in AMU where a closed group of EC decides on the probable candidates whose names are sent to AMU Court for voting.
Nevertheless, a university should have an autonomy over selection of a vice chancellor. But the question is should autonomy be a reason to infest mediocrity and corruption. In case of AMU, when a fallacy is brought to light, it becomes blasphemy. And the messenger is attacked with a can of worms called the minority character. By using the minority character card every now and then, AMU is destroying its own case.
The author is an AMU alumnus and Practicing Advocate in Supreme Court.