Govt clipped powers of IIM Board, rejected Niti advice against doing so

NITI Aayog, the apex public policy think tank of the Union government, urged the Education Ministry in its comments to retain Section 17 of the Act.  This section empowers the Board of Governors (BoG) of an IIM to initiate an inquiry if the institute fails to function in accordance with the provisions and objectives of the Act.

Section 17 specifies that the inquiry will be conducted by a retired High Court judge, and based on its findings, the Board will have the authority to remove the director or take any other necessary action.

NITI Aayog had advocated for the retention of the said section, even if with certain modifications. In its comments, it argued in favour of keeping the section, stating, “The Board is composed of eminent individuals with diverse professional experiences and is representative of varied stakeholders with distinct interests. Hence the Board should have the power to initiate an inquiry to protect the interests of such stakeholders as may be neglected by the institute and/or its leadership.”

“Omitting Section 17 and vesting the power of initiating inquiry in the Visitor (the President of India) alone (through Section 10A), and not providing any recourse to the Board to initiate an inquiry will render the Board totally powerless in protecting the interest of the very stakeholders it represents. Based on the principles of delegation, the appointing authorities are considered competent in respect of disciplinary matters. Higher authorities are considered appellate and for review thereafter,” Aayog further wrote to the Education Ministry.

As a compromise, NITI Aayog suggested to the Ministry that the Board be allowed to retain its power to initiate inquiries and have them conducted by a retired High Court judge. The findings of these inquiries can then be submitted to the Visitor (read: the President) for her consideration.

However, this suggestion was not accepted by the Education Ministry.

The ministry argued that vesting the power of inquiry with the Board, which is the governing body of the institute, would mean that one entity would have the power to probe itself. Furthermore, it stated that under the amendments, the Board was always free to inform the Visitor of any irregularity and recommend an inquiry.

The amendment to the IIM Act effectively places the IIM Boards under the authority of the Visitor, the President, granting the government significant influence over appointments. The chairperson of the board, previously selected by its members, will now be appointed by the Visitor.

Additionally, the government will determine the conditions for suspending or dissolving the IIM’s board. Furthermore, the expanded powers granted to the Visitor have eroded the institution’s autonomy; for instance, the President can initiate inquiries and issue directives that must be adhered to by the IIM management.

IIM autonomy has been a fraught issue. In 2016, when IIM Bill was being drafted, the Education Ministry had advocated retaining some form of government control over the institutes to ensure financial and administrative propriety but the PMO had wanted a hands-off approach.

The draft law went back and forth for almost a year— from October 2015 to September 2016 — during which the Education Ministry stuck to its guns under Smriti Irani but yielded immediately after Prakash Javadekar took over in July 2016. The ministry had to revise its Cabinet note thrice, with over 10 substantive changes in all, before it was green lit.

After the passage of the Bill, in September 2018, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, addressing the inaugural session of a conference on “Academic Leadership on Education for Resurgence,” the Prime Minister, referring to autonomy to IIMs, had said, “Sarkar kahin nahi aayegi, koi babu aakar nahi baithega (Government will not interfere, no officer will have any role).”