For all its professions that the fee cut does not amount to meddling, the HRD Ministry today baulked at giving an undertaking to the Supreme Court that it would not ‘‘interfere’’ with the autonomy of the IIMs. But as the court insisted on a Government undertaking on the PIL challenging its fee cut order, Additional Solicitor General Mukul Rohtagi sought time ‘‘to take instructions at highest level.’’ While granting a week to the Government to make up its mind, a bench headed by Chief Justice V N Khare said that once the Government gives the necessary undertaking, the court will clarify that ‘‘if any issue is raised on autonomy on a future date,’’ the aggrieved party will be at liberty to seek a legal remedy. This observation of Justice Khare—made entirely on his own—echoes the resolution passed two days ago by the faculty of IIM Ahmedabad asserting the institute’s right to seek a legal remedy against the fee cut. The tenor of today’s proceedings made it clear that if the Government declines to give an undertaking on March 19, the court will, as requested by the petitioners, recall its February 27 order disposing of the PIL and decide the fee cut on merits. Countering the plea for an undertaking, Rohtagi said it was fraught with problems as there was no accepted definition of autonomy. ‘‘What is autonomy?’’ he asked, adding that there were those who condemned Big Brother HRD cornered in the court even the attempt to increase the seats as an attack on the autonomy of the IIMs. Justice Khare sought to allay his fears saying, ‘‘Autonomy in common parlance is very well understood.’’ Deriding the petitioners’ plea as an attempt to secure ‘‘a certificate of good behaviour,’’ Rohtagi said if the word undertaking was inserted in the court order, any decision taken by the Government in connection with the IIMs would lead to contempt proceedings. Calling the plea for undertaking as ‘‘mala fide,’’ Rohtagi said, ‘‘the Government knows who are the people behind the attempt to blow the issue out of proportion.’’ The petitioners’ counsel, Harish Salve, took exception to the charge of mala fide as that that amounts to, he said, ‘‘a personal attack.’’ He added for good measure that neither he nor any of the petitioners aspired to play any role in the management of the IIMs. Although today’s hearing was held under the shadow of an ugly confrontation last Tuesday between HRD ministry officials and the IIM Ahmedabad Society, Salve made no reference to it in the court and, in an apparent strategic move, focused on cornering the Government on the undertaking already sought. As The Indian Express first reported, HRD Joint Secretary V S Pandey had threatened to dismiss the IIMA society, take over the management of the institute. And, to top it all, had told the IIMA Society that the fee cut was a ‘‘political agenda’’ and dared the institute to come in the Government’s way.
