Aligarh Muslim University VC Naima Khatoon's appointment challenged in SC

The appointment of Professor Naima Khatoon as Vice-Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has been challenged before the Supreme Court, which on Monday raised the issue of conflict of interest as her husband was part of the Executive Council meeting that shortlisted her name for the panel.

"Certainly, the husband's participation when the wife's name is under consideration raises doubts. It is said that things should not only be done properly but also be seen to be done properly," CJI Gavai said about her husband Prof Mohammad Gulrez — who was the officiating Vice-Chancellor of AMU during April 2023 and April 2024.

Justice K Vinod Chandrabn — who was a part of the CJI-led Bench — recused himself from hearing the petition filed by Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani and Faizan Mustafa, challenging the appointment of Prof Khatoon as AMU Vice-Chancellor as he had selected Prof Mustafa as VC of Chanakya National Law University, Patna.

“I was the chancellor of CNLU when I selected Faizan Mustafa ...so I can recuse myself from the hearing,” Justice Chandran said.

“We have full faith (in Justice Chandran). No recusal is needed. You can very much decide,” said Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

“Let my brother decide. List this case before a Bench to which Justice Chandran is not a part of,” the CJI said.

Now, the petition will be listed before another Bench.

On behalf of the petitioners, senior counsel Kapil Sibal questioned the validity of the selection process. “If this is the way Vice-Chancellors are appointed, I shudder to think what will happen in future,” Sibal said, adding that the outcome was tilted by the casting of two crucial votes, including one by the outgoing Vice-Chancellor (her husband). “She would have secured only six votes if those two are excluded,” he added.

Countering Sibal’s submissions, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati stressed the historic nature of Khatoon’s appointment. “This is part selection and part election. The high court may not have agreed with our election argument but it did uphold her appointment,” Bhati said, pointing out that the petitioners had not challenged related appointments such as that of the Provost.

As Mehta said the objections were based merely on “apprehended bias”, the CJI said ideally the Vice-Chancellor should have refrained from participating in the voting process.

“Normally, even when we sit in the Collegium, when a junior from the bar is under consideration, we also recuse,” the CJI said.