IIM freedom: Govt mum, SC to hear again

This sets the stage not only for a legal debate on autonomy but also for drawing the IIMs themselves into the case.

The bench headed by Chief Justice V N Khare proposed on its own that the six IIMs could be impleaded as parties to the PIL.

That came as a Godsend to the petitioners’ counsel, Harish Salve, for at least two reasons: Firstly, if the court allows the IIMs themselves to be brought into the proceedings, the question raised by it over the locus standi of the petitioners will be left with little significance.

Secondly, the faculty councils of the three leading IIMs, based in Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Kolkata, have already vindicated the PIL by passing resolutions denouncing the fee cut as an attack on their autonomy.

So, in a bid to take advantage of Justice Khare’s impleadment proposal, Salve urged the bench to call straightaway for the views of the IIMs.

But Justice Khare said that he would rather wait for the petitioners, advocate Sandeep Parekh and two others, to file an application seeking the impleadment of the IIMs.

This means that no orders will be passed on the participation of the IIMs till they file this application by April 8, the next date of the case. Today’s order has in effect restored the PIL to the status it had on February 16, the first hearing when the bench directed the petitioners to produce material giving the complete financial picture of the IIMs.

Though the challenge to his fee cut order has been revived, Joshi has a reason to smile because the court has still not issued a notice to the Government on the petition. It is only when such a notice is issued will the Government have to file a counter affidavit.

In the event, it is the petitioners who been asked to file another affidavit by April 8, a process which suggests that the court is yet to decide whether the case is worth taking up.

The consolation for the petitioners is that they have succeeded in cornering the Government on the sensitive question of autonomy. On their application, the court directed the Government on March 12 to give an undertaking that, despite the fee cut, it would not interfere with the autonomy of the IIMs.

After mulling over the matter for a week, Additional Solicitor General Mukul Rohtagi told the bench today that the Government was not prepared to give any ‘‘further undertaking’’ than what is already stated in the court order of February 27.

The order recalled today quotes Rohtagi as saying that the Government’s decision on February 5 reducing the IIM fee by 80% ‘‘shall not be construed as interference in the autonomy of the institutions.’’

The bench agreed with the petitioners that this statement fell short of the kind of undertaking they wanted from the Government on autonomy when they offered not to press their case. Rohtagi, on the other hand, maintained that the Government cannot give an undertaking on autonomy as its parameters cannot be defined. Any small pretext, he said, can then be used to initiate contempt proceedings against the Government.