PIL asked for mile, settles for an inch

This was in sharp contrast to what they had prayed for in the PIL. It had asked the court to quash Joshi’s February 5 fee-cut order and, in a rare move, had even named the Minister as a respondent for allegedly trying to tighten his control over IIMs.

However, appearing for the petitioners—a part-time faculty, a former student and a current student—for the first time today, senior advocate Harish Salve raised eyebrows when he told the court he had no objection to the fee cut as such but was concerned only about the adverse impact it might have on the IIMs’ autonomy.

To which Additional Solicitor General Mukul Rohatgi responded by saying the Government would make good the revenue shortfall arising out of the 80% fee cut. And then repeated Joshi’s claim that the fee cut did not amount to ‘‘interference’’ in the autonomy of IIMs. So the legal battle which has been widely seen as a symbol of the reforms required in higher education ended abruptly right in the second hearing without going into the merits of the fee reduction order.

Since the IIMs have so far kept away from the court, Justice Khare observed today while disposing of the PIL that they were free to pursue whatever remedies they deemed fit.

The whole controversy now boils down to the meaning of the Government’s assurance in the court on autonomy. Salve told The Indian Express that the HRD Ministry has emerged weaker from the case because it cannot anymore tell the IIMs to increase the faculty-student ratio and reduce the size of its corpus. ‘‘If it ever again issues any direction to the IIMs, the Government will be hard pressed to show that it is not violating its commitment to the court of preserving their autonomy,’’ Salve said. But Rohatgi is equally vehement in claiming that the Government had got the better of the petitioners. Though Salve came up with an unexpected move, Rohatgi did not feel the need to seek fresh instructions from the Government. ‘‘I did not make any concession on autonomy,’’ Rohatgi told The Indian Express. ‘‘If you think anything has changed on account of my statement, you will first have to define autonomy.’’

Which is exactly what IIM Ahmedabad director Bakul Dholakia said this evening, reacting to the SC’s ruling.

‘‘The board of governors,’’ Dholakia said, ‘‘needs to see what is the definition of autonomy and who is defining it…Effective operational autonomy is an important element that determines the quality of all our activities, so we need to understand the full implications of the government’s assurance.’’

Today’s climbdown by the petitioners follows the tough questions put to them in the first hearing on February 16 by Justice Khare asking why they were objecting to the fee cut when the IIMs themselves did not seem to mind it.