SC judge K Vinod Chandran recuses from hearing plea over AMU VC’s appointment

New Delhi: Supreme Court's Justice K Vinod Chandrabn on Monday recused from hearing a plea against Professor Naima Khatoon's appointment as Aligarh Muslim University's (AMU) vice-chancellor.

The top court was apprised about Khatoon becoming the vice-chancellor (VC) after getting the key vote of her husband who was then the VC of AMU.

The husband's vote in favour of his wife was alleged to be "conflict of interest" by the petitioner.

The CJI said ideally, the VC should not have participated in the appointment process, allowing the senior-most member to take part instead.

The bench, which also comprised Justices Chandran and NV Anjaria, was hearing the appeal filed by Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani against an Allahabad High Court order upholding the appointment of Khatoon, who became the first woman to hold the post in the institution's history.

Justice Chandran offered to recuse himself from the matter, citing his past role as a university chancellor in a similar selection process.

“I was the chancellor of CNLU (Consortium of National Law University) when I selected Faizan Mustafa ...so I can recuse myself from the hearing,” the judge said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “We have full faith (in Justice Chandran). No recusal is needed. You can very much decide.” The CJI, however, said, “Let my brother (Justice Chandran) decide. List this case before a bench to which Justice Chandran is not a part of." The plea would now go before a different bench.

The hearing saw petitioner's counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, questioning the validity of the selection process.

“If this is the way vice-chancellors are appointed, I shudder to think what will happen in future,” he said, claiming the outcome tilted by the casting of two crucial votes, including one by the outgoing vice-chancellor.

“She would have secured only six votes if those two are excluded,” he added.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati opposed the submission, stressing on the "historic nature" of Khatoon’s appointment.

“This is part selection and part election. The high court may not have agreed with our election argument but it did uphold her appointment,” Bhati said.

She said the petitioner had not challenged related appointments such as that of the provost.

Mehta, on the other hand, said the objections were merely based on “apprehended bias".

The CJI, however, remarked ideally the VC should have refrained from participating in the voting process.

“Even in collegium decisions, if such a situation arises, we recuse ourselves,” he added.