Prof. Mazhar Asif again surrounds himself with fresh controversy over his Vice-Chancellor (VC) appointment. Prof. Asif as the VC of Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) has now ended up in legal trouble, with the High Court issuing a notice on the petition challenging its validity. The petition filed by Delhi-based advocate Vishal Kumar Rai raises serious questions about the legality of the appointment process and also alleges blatant violations of the statutory provision of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988.
Justice Prateek Jahan, while hearing the petition on March 10, sought responses from the Union Government, the Visitor of JMI (the President of India), the Search-Cum-Selection Committee, and the university administration. Meanwhile, the court did not pass any interim order but directed all the respondents to file the affidavits in the form of replies within four weeks from today.
The petitioner, Rai, who filed a writ of Quo Warranto, argues that the appointment of Prof. Asif violates Statute 2 of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, which states:
"The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Visitor from a panel of not less than three persons recommended by a Committee constituted for the purpose and shall hold office for a term of five years."
Additionally, the petition cites Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulation, 2018 which mandates:
"Be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years of experience as a Professor in a university system or ten years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research or academic administrative organisation."
These laws lay down strict eligibility criteria for the appointment of VC, and Rai contends that JMI failed to comply with them. Advocate Dr. Amit George, who’s appearing for the petitioner, insisted on the locus standi (personal legal right to challenge the matter before a court of law) of Rai’s right to challenge an illegal appointment through a quo warranto petition. He also reiterated that the crucial documents related to the appointment were already in the public domain, which was published by Illustrated Daily News.
There was severe pushback over the central government and JMI’s counsel; however, the Add. Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for JMI, argued that Rai lacks direct involvement in the matter and thus can’t challenge the appointment. While citing a prior ruling on the JMI VC appointment, Adv. Monika Arora, appearing for the Union of India, referred to the Delhi High Court’s Division bench decision in M. Ethesham UL Haque v. Union of India (UOI), [(2023 SCC OnLine Del 2962)], which had previously dealt with the appointment of VC of JMI. Ms. Arora contended that the same legal principle applied in the case. Rising constitutional barriers—Ms. Arora invoked Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India, which clearly prohibits judicial inquiry into advice given to the President of India. This could make it difficult for the court to scrutinise documents submitted to the President regarding the appointment.
The stakes are larger battle over university autonomy, this battle is not just about Prof. Asif’s appointment but also the broader control of public universities, especially minority institutions like JMI and other institutions in India. The matter has far-reaching implications; if the courts find that the central government or search-cum-selection committee violates rules for favours, it could set a precedent for challenging VC appointments in other universities, or if the petition is dismissed, it may reinforce executive control over academic institutions, limiting judicial reviews of such favours.
This chaos is similar to Tamil Nadu’s (TN) VC appointment tussle, which creates a pattern of political interference, which bears similarities to the recent controversy in TN, where the state government clashed with the governor over the appointment of VCs in state universities. In TN, chief minister M.K. Stalin accused Governor R.N. Ravi of bypassing the state government and unilaterally appointing VCs, sparking a constitutional crisis in the state.
Stalin argued that university autonomy was being eroded under the guise of executive control. Similarly, in JMI’s case, the petitioner alleges blatant violation of statutory regulations, with the process of selecting a VC being dictated by the executive rather than an independent academic selection. Both cases highlight a growing trend of political interference in minority institutions, raising concerns about whether VC appointments are based on merit or political allegiance. High court being drawn into these disputes, the larger question remains: Are universities truly autonomous as a state, or are they becoming battlegrounds for union control?
For now, the court has given four weeks for the Central Government and JMI authority to file their counter-affidavits, after which the petitioner may submit a rejoinder (a legal reply countering arguments in a case). The matter will next be heard on July 16, 2025. As the case reveals, JMI students, faculty, and legal observers like us will be watching closely. Will the High Court intervene in the appointment of one of India’s prominent institution VCs, or will it support the Union government authority?
The guest author, Ali Asghar is a student of law at Jamia Millia Islamia.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication reflect those of the author and not necessarily of The Jamia Review
