SC rejects challenge to AMU vice chancellor appointment, backs Allahabad HC ruling

The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the appointment of Professor Naima Khatoon as vice chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, dismissing petitions that questioned the fairness of the selection process.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi upheld the Allahabad High Court ruling, confirming Professor Khatoon’s appointment as the first woman to hold the top post at AMU.

The petitions were filed by Professors Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani and Faizan Mustafa, who argued that the process was compromised since her husband, Professor Mohammad Gulrez, was serving as acting vice chancellor when the Executive Council recommended her name.

They claimed his participation created a perception of bias.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that Professor Gulrez should ideally have stepped aside.

“He should have recused and made his deputy participate in it,” the bench noted.

But the judges ruled that his presence did not invalidate the procedure, as the Executive Council’s recommendation was advisory and the final decision rested with the Visitor.

Earlier, the Allahabad High Court had upheld the appointment, finding that Professor Khatoon’s eligibility and professional record were not under question and that the steps taken complied with the AMU Act and its regulations.

Observers said the Supreme Court’s ruling balanced concerns of transparency with the need to respect institutional autonomy.

Professor Khatoon’s selection has been widely welcomed as a breakthrough for women in higher education leadership. Yet critics argue that even the appearance of conflict could erode public trust.

The case has stirred debate over transparency in university governance and the responsibilities of interim officials when family members are under consideration.

With the top court’s decision, AMU can move ahead with its leadership plans without further legal hurdles.

The judgment is also expected to guide future disputes where potential conflicts of interest are weighed against established procedures and merit.