Threatened, IIM stands up to be counted

Incidentally, despite the SC nod to the fee-cut, the faculty at both IIM Kolkata and Bangalore have already passed resolutions criticising the Government’s order.

These threats came at a meeting of the IIMA Society yesterday where the Ministry’s Joint Secretary V S Pandey and Financial Advisor V Piparsania stalled a similar resolution sought to be passed by the society.

Society spokesperson Praful Anubhai said that the officials had threatened to ‘‘supersede/dismiss’’ the society and take ‘‘action’’ against IIMA director Bakul Dholakia for opposing the fee cut.

Pandey, however, denied these charges. Speaking to The Indian Express he said: ‘‘No threats were given to anybody and all that is attributed to me is wrong. I am a member of the society and was there to resolve the issue and not make matters more complicated. Besides, what I did in the meeting was to read out certain sections of the Memorandum of Association, which if the members feel threatened about, then what can I do?’’

So what the society could not do, the faculty did today. Their resolution said: ‘‘The threats issued by government representatives to the society members on March 9 was in violation of the spirit of the undertaking given by the government in the Supreme Court on February 27 in the PIL challenging the HRD ministry order wherein the government had assured the court that it does not intend to undermine the autonomy of IIMs.’’

When contacted, the PIL’s petitioner Sandeep Parekh said that the Government’s latest threats have ‘‘a direct bearing’’ on the application due to come up for hearing on Friday.

Parekh said the ‘‘strong-arm tactics’’ adopted by the HRD Ministry vindicate the PIL’s allegation that the fee cut ordered in the name of the poor was only a ruse to tighten the Government’s control over the IIMs.

‘‘We need not talk anymore about autonomy in the abstract. The Government gave a concrete demonstration of its understanding at the IIM Society meeting,’’ Parekh said.

The application filed today by him and two other petitioners seeks a modification of the court order of February 27 in order to correct an ‘‘oversight’’ and incorporate the Government’s undertaking on autonomy.

Alternatively, if the Government does not agree to the modication, the application urges the court to recall its order and restore the petition for full arguments. Incidentally, the petitioners’ counsel, Harish Salve, raised the undertaking issue in the apex court yesterday.