Today(on 29th May),The Delhi High Court issues notices to Jamia Millia Islamia and others following a plea by Professor Eqbal Hussain against the quashing of his appointment as officiating Vice-Chancellor. Despite acknowledging the plea, the court declines interim directions regarding decisions by the new Vice-Chancellor.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 29th May),The Delhi High Court has issued notices to Jamia Millia Islamia, along with the University Grant Commission (UGC) and several others. This move comes in response to a plea filed by Professor Eqbal Hussain, challenging an order that quashed his appointment as the officiating Vice-Chancellor of the university.
The High Court, comprising a Division Bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju, addressed the matter on Wednesday. While acknowledging Hussain’s plea, the Bench declined the request made by his counsel for interim directions regarding the decisions taken by the new Vice-Chancellor.
The Bench emphasized-
“We have no intention of disrupting the entire functioning of an individual who is already serving in office.”
This decision sets a tone of cautious deliberation, signaling the court’s intention to navigate the complex legal terrain surrounding administrative appointments within educational institutions. It reflects a balance between upholding legal integrity and ensuring the continuity of institutional functioning.
Highlighting their approach, the Court indicated that it would issue notices regarding the matter and further evaluate the case in August. This timeline underscores the meticulousness with which the judiciary intends to address the intricacies of the dispute.
ALSO READ: ‘Permanent Reinstatement of JMI Teachers’: Supreme Court Order Citing UGC Regulations
The crux of the legal contention stems from a single-judge order delivered by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on May 22. In this ruling, Justice Gedela determined that Professor Hussain’s progression to the positions of pro-Vice-Chancellor and officiating Vice-Chancellor was in violation of established legal norms.
This legal impasse encapsulates wider concerns regarding administrative appointments and institutional governance. It emphasizes the significance of adhering to legal protocols and the consequences of straying from established procedures.
Professor Hussain’s appeal highlights the personal and professional implications inherent in such conflicts. His pursuit of legal remedies underscores the importance of guaranteeing procedural equity and openness in administrative affairs.
The involvement of the University Grant Commission (UGC) adds another layer of complexity to the case. As a central regulatory body for higher education in India, its role in overseeing appointments and governance practices underscores the broader implications of the dispute.
The appointment of the Vice Chancellor at Jamia Millia Islamia has been declared illegal, prompting the court to order the swift replacement of the incumbent official. The decision, handed down by Justice Gedela, has significant implications for the university’s leadership and governance.
The court’s verdict was unequivocal:
“Due to respondent no. 2 not being appointed in accordance with the Statute, the extension of his tenure as the Acting Vice Chancellor cannot be allowed to continue.”
Furthermore, the judge directed the university’s Visitor to exercise authority vested under the Jamia Millia Islamia Act promptly. Specifically, the court urged the appointment of an eligible individual to serve as Vice Chancellor in an officiating capacity without delay.
“The designation of the Vice Chancellor (Acting)/Administrator (Interim) must occur within one week from the issuance of this order. The process to appoint a Vice Chancellor on a permanent basis must begin no later than two weeks after the appointment of the Vice Chancellor (Acting)/Administrator (Interim) and must be finalized within 30 days thereafter.”
-the Court had directed.
These directives highlight the urgency with which the situation must be addressed. The court’s timeline underscores the need for expediency in ensuring the university’s leadership remains stable and compliant with legal statutes.
The ruling came in response to two petitions challenging the appointment of Prof Hussain as Vice Chancellor. These petitions alleged flagrant violations and total non-compliance with the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, raising serious concerns about the legitimacy of Hussain’s tenure.
Justice Gedela’s assessment of Hussain’s appointment left no room for doubt: it was deemed incorrect and contrary to established legal norms. This unequivocal stance underscores the court’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that administrative appointments adhere to statutory provisions.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Issues Notice to Centre, UGC on Challenge to Lyngdoh Committee Recommendation
The impact of this ruling reaches far beyond the borders of Jamia Millia Islamia. It addresses larger concerns surrounding governance, accountability, and compliance with legal frameworks within academic institutions. The court’s involvement serves as a prompt that institutions must function within legal boundaries, upholding procedural integrity and transparency.
Case Title:
Professor Eqbal Hussain v Jamia Millia Islamia University & Ors.
