Delhi HC seeks response from Centre, Jamia Millia in plea challenging V-C’s appointment

However, the Centre and the varsity, primarily took objection to whether the court could entertain the plea.

The petition was moved by law graduate Vishal Kumar Rai, a 31-year-old Delhi resident. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, appearing for the university, and central government standing counsel Monika Arora, took objection to the “summary notes” for the President of India, who is the Visitor of the varsity, which were submitted by the Centre. Arora submitted that Article 74(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits judicial inquiry into the question of whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by ministers to the President. The Centre and the varsity, as recorded in the court’s order, called upon Rai, “to provide details of the provenance of these documents in his hands, and also state clearly as to how he has affirmed these annexures as true copies of their respective originals”.

The petitioner contended that the documents have been accessed through a news website.

Rai challenged Asif’s selection and appointment as JMI V-C on the ground of violation and non-compliance of statutory provisions of the JMI Act and UGC regulations. Terming the appointment illegal, Rai highlighted that while the Visitor, the President, is empowered under the JMI Act to independently nominate one person to the committee who shall be the chairperson of the committee, the education minister recommended that the Visitor may pick her nominee from the two recommended by the ministry. The two names were of professors Mehraj-Ud-Din and Seyed Ehtesham Hasnain, then the national science chair of IIT Delhi. The Visitor had ultimately approved Mehraj-Ud-Din as the chairperson.

Rai submitted that “a choice between two names is not all the free discretion to be exercised by the Hon’ble Visitor when selecting the Chairman of the Selection Committee as contemplated under the JMI Act,” adding that the action of the minister in recommending the panel of two names is “tantamount to de facto nomination of the Chairman of the Committee”. Rai has contended that there was “illegal interference by the Ministry of Education in the statutory appointment process of the Vice Chancellor in contravention of the law” and thus the “entire process culminating into the impugned appointment of Professor Mazahr Asif (Respondent No. 3), is a colorable exercise of power and in flagrant violation and total non-compliance of the statutory provisions and regulations…”.

Seeking that the appointment be set aside, Rai has also sought the records pertaining to the appointment of the V-C.

The Centre and the JMI told the court on Monday that most of the questions raised in Rai’s petition have already been answered against the petitioner in a 2023 judgment by a division bench of the Delhi High Court. The division bench had then dismissed an appeal challenging the appointment of the previous V-C, Dr Najma Akhtar.

The high court granted the respondent parties four weeks to file their counter affidavits and the petitioner another two weeks to file a rejoinder if he wants to.

The court has kept the matter next for consideration on July 16.