NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed its reservations over validity of appointment of Prof Naima Khatoon, as the first woman Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, as her husband, Prof Mohd Gulrez, then officiating VC, was part of the executive council meeting that shortlisted her name.
A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Justice N V Anjaria said the participation of the husband, when the wife's name is under consideration for a post raised doubts over fairness of the process.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Prof Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani and Prof Faizan Mustafa, argued the matter against the Allahabad High Court's order which upheld Prof Khatoon's appointment.
“If this is the way Vice-Chancellors are appointed, I shudder to think what will happen in future,” he said.
Sibal said that the outcome was tilted by the casting of two crucial votes, including one by the outgoing VC.
“She would have secured only six votes if those two are excluded,” he submitted.
The counsel claimed that the appointment was vitiated since her husband had presided over the meeting of the executive council and university court, which included her name in the panel to be sent to the visitor.
The court observed that the previous VC should not have attended the meeting when his wife's name was being considered. It pointed out the High Court observed that it would have been better for the VC to have walked out of the proceedings and made the next senior person the chairperson.
“Normally, even when we sit in the Collegium, when a junior from the bar is under consideration, we also recuse. Certainly, the husband's participation when the wife's name is under consideration, raises doubts,” the bench said.
Things should not only be done properly but also be seen to be done properly, the court added, citing a saying.
Additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, however, referred to the historic nature of Prof Khatoon’s appointment. She contended that this is a part selection and a part election.
“The High Court may not have agreed with our election argument but it did uphold her appointment,” she said.
Bhati pointed out that the petitioners had not challenged related appointments such as that of the provost.
She termed the objections as based merely on “apprehension of bias.” However, the bench felt that ideally the VC should have refrained from participating in the voting process.
Justice Chandran, a part of the bench, offered to recuse himself from the matter, citing his past role as a university chancellor in a similar selection process.
“I was the chancellor of Consortium of National Law University when I selected Faizan Mustafa ...so I can recuse myself from the hearing,” he said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said there is full faith in Justice Chandran and there is no need for his recusal.
The CJI, however, directed listing of the case before a bench to which Justice Chandran is not a part of. Now the plea will be heard before another bench.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
