'Husband Attending Meeting Which Selected His Wife's Name Raises Doubts' : Supreme Court On Prof Naima Khatoon's Appointment As AMU VC

On Monday (August 18), the Supreme Court verbally questioned the appointment of Professor Naima Khatoon as the first woman Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, noting that her husband, Professor Mohd. Gulrez, then officiating Vice-Chancellor, was part of the Executive Council meeting that shortlisted her name for the panel.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the Special Leave Petition filed by Professor Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani and Professor Faizan Mustafa against the Allahabad High Court's order which upheld Professor Khatoon's appointment.   

The primary ground of challenge, raised by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for the petitioners, was that the appointment of Professor Khatoon was vitiated since her husband had presided over the meeting of the Executive Council and University Court, which included her name in the panel to be sent to the Visitor. "If this is the way Vice Chancellors are appointed, I shudder to think what will happen in future," Sibal exclaimed.

The bench orally said that ideally, the previous Vice Chancellor should not have attended the meeting when his wife's name was being considered.

CJI Gavai pointed out that the High Court itself observed that it would have been better for the Vice Chancellor to have walked out of the proceedings and made the next senior person the Chairperson.

"Normally, even when we sit in the collegium, when a junior from the bar is under consideration, we also recuse....Certainly, the husband's participation when the wife's name is under consideration, it raises doubts. It is said that things should not only be done properly but also be seen to be done properly," CJI Gavai said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed that it would have been proper for the Vice Chancellor to recuse himself. However, he cited the "doctrine of necessity" as held in the Tata Cellular case, and said that when the participation is to meet the legal necessity, the process cannot be said to be vitiated.

At this juncture, Justice Chandran expressed that he was recusing from hearing the matter, since he, as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, was the ex-officio Chancellor of the Chanakya National Law University, who had appointed Professor Faizan Mustafa(the second petitioner) as the VC of CNLU.

SG Tushar Mehta however said that there was no need for Justice Chandran to recuse. "We have full faith in your lordships. Even if your lordships have selected Prof Faizan Mustafa, your lordships can decide" SG said.

"The question raised here is of bias. Since the subject matter is that of bias, it is proper that I recuse," Justice Chandran said. 

Saying that it is ultimately for Justice Chandran to take a call, CJI Gavai dictated the order to place the matter before a bench of which Justice Chandran was not a part.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted during the hearing that Profesor Naima Khatoon was a lady of "stellar academic record" and that she scripted history by being the first woman VC of the AMU.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal was assisted by Advocates Nizam Pasha, Lzafeer Ahmad B F, Sidharth Kaushik, Awstika Das, Arif Ali, and Madhav Deepak.

Case : MUZAFFAR URUJ RABBANI Vs UNION OF INDIA | SLP(C) No. 19209/2025