The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has upheld the appointment of Professor Naima Khatoon as the Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), rejecting allegations of bias and procedural impropriety. The Court observed that the mere fact that her husband, Professor Mohammad Gulrez, presided over meetings of the Executive Council and the University Court during the selection process cannot be a valid ground to set aside her appointment.
A Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh delivered the verdict while dismissing three writ petitions challenging the appointment, filed by Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg, Prof. (Retd.) Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani, and Syed Afzal Murtaza Rizvi—who were also applicants for the post.
Background
The controversy arose after the resignation of Prof. Tariq Mansoor as Vice-Chancellor in April 2023. Following his departure, Professor Gulrez, then Pro-Vice-Chancellor, assumed the role of Acting Vice-Chancellor under Statute 2(7) of the AMU First Statutes. During his interim tenure, the process for appointing a new Vice-Chancellor commenced, culminating in the selection of Prof. Naima Khatoon—his wife—as one of the candidates.
In the Executive Council meeting on October 30, 2023, 33 recommendations were considered. Through a secret ballot, a five-member panel was finalized and forwarded to the University Court. From this panel, the Court shortlisted three candidates, including Prof. Naima Khatoon, and recommended them to the Visitor (the President of India), who subsequently appointed her as Vice-Chancellor through a communication dated April 22, 2024.
Allegations by Petitioners
The petitioners alleged that:
- The process was tainted by bias, as Prof. Gulrez chaired the Executive Council and University Court meetings where his wife’s name was discussed.
- The rules of voting were altered mid-process without proper justification.
- The composition of the Executive Council was changed just before the selection to allegedly favour Prof. Khatoon.
- Principles of natural justice were violated, as Prof. Gulrez ruled on objections against his own participation.
Court’s Observations
While acknowledging that Prof. Gulrez “ought not to have presided over” the meetings, the Court clarified that his role was not decisive in the outcome:
“Chairing and participation of Professor Gulrez in the process of recommendation is thus held improper. However… we are of the considered view that participation of Professor Gulrez Ahmad in such proceedings has not vitiated the selection proceedings,” the Court held.
The Court found no manipulation in voting, dismissing the petitioners’ claim that 99 votes were cast instead of 95. Upon reviewing original records, it confirmed that the voting process was conducted fairly and in accordance with the rules.
On the issue of bias, the Court emphasized that:
“It cannot be said that a husband will not be affected personally by any motion adopted by the house concerning his wife… yet fairness would have been better reflected if Professor Gulrez had not presided over these meetings.”
However, it noted that the Executive Council and University Court were multi-member bodies, and decisions were taken by majority votes. Moreover, the final decision rested with the Visitor, who had the discretion to accept or reject any recommendations, and against whom no allegation of bias was made.
On the Role of the Visitor
The Bench reiterated that the President of India, acting as the Visitor, had full discretion under the AMU Statutes to appoint any of the three recommended candidates:
“The Visitor is not obligated to accept the recommendation of the Executive Council and the University Court… The ultimate selection of Vice-Chancellor is by the Visitor from amongst the three names forwarded by the University Court.”
Significance of the Appointment
The Court noted that Prof. Naima Khatoon is the first woman Vice-Chancellor in the history of AMU, a 100-year-old institution, and that her qualifications were not in dispute.
“Merely because her husband was acting as Vice-Chancellor and had presided and participated in the meetings… cannot be a ground to interfere with her appointment as the first woman Vice-Chancellor of the University,” the Court concluded.
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court refused to interfere with the Visitor’s decision, observing that it was taken in accordance with law and without any allegations of mala fide.
Appearance:
The Court heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Kunal Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.19427 of 2023, Sri Saquib Mukhtar, learned13 counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.21023 of 2023, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.16348 of 2024, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Sri AbradAhmad, learned counsels for Union of India; Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for Aligarh Muslim University, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for Professor Mohammad Gulrez, Sri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the Vice- Chancellor, whose appointment is under challenge, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for U.G.C.
