SC judge K Vinod Chandran recuses himself from hearing plea related to Aligarh Muslim University V-C’s appointment

Supreme Court judge Justice K Vinod Chandran on Monday recused himself from hearing a plea challenging the appointment of Professor Naima Khatoon as Vice-Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).

A bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Chandran and NV Anjaria was hearing the appeal filed by Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani against an Allahabad High Court order upholding appointment of Khatoon, the first woman to hold the post in the institution’s history.

During the proceedings, Justice Chandran 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 CNLU (Consortium of National Law University) when I selected Faizan Mustafa ...so I can recuse myself from the hearing,” Justice Chandran said.

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

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

Now the plea will be heard before another bench.

At the outset, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, 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,” he said, adding that the outcome was tilted by the casting of two crucial votes, including one by the outgoing Vice-Chancellor.

“She would have secured only six votes if those two are excluded,” he submitted.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati opposed the submission and 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, adding that the petitioner had not challenged related appointments such as that of the Provost.

The solicitor general termed the objections as based merely on “apprehended bias.”

However, the CJI said that ideally the Vice-Chancellor should have refrained from participating in the voting process.

Drawing a parallel, the CJI said, “Even in collegium decisions, if such a situation arises, we recuse ourselves.”