HC upholds appointment of AMU's 1st woman vice-chancellor
AGRA: Dismissing all petitions that challenged the selection process,
Allahabad high court
upheld the appointment of professor
Naima Khatoon
as the vice-chancellor (VC) of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) on Saturday.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Khatoon, who earlier served as principal of women's college in AMU, became the first woman to hold the VC's post in the varsity's over 100-year history, reports Mohammad Dilshad.
HC division bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh found no procedural lapses, asserting the selection process adhered fully to the AMU Act, statutes and regulations. The court also emphasised the symbolic and progressive nature of her 'historic appointment', calling it a 'major stride for gender representation and constitutional values in academic leadership'.
Khatoon says HC ruling reaffirmation of democratic values
The HC division bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh further recognised that the 'final discretion to appoint the VC lay with the 'visitor' of the university — the President of India, and no allegations of mala fide were established at that level'. The court had reserved the verdict on April 9 after hearing arguments from counsels representing the petitioner, AMU and the central govt.
The petitions were filed in late 2023 by Prof Syed Afzal Murtaza Rizvi of Jamia Millia Islamia, Mujahid Beg from AMU's medicine department and retired AMU prof M U Rabbani.
They had raised objections after Khatoon, wife of then acting VC Mohd Gulrez, was 'shortlisted' for the post.
After HC's decision, Khatoon, said, 'I've always had the highest regard and faith in our judiciary. This verdict is not just a personal vindication, but a strong reaffirmation of institutional processes and democratic values in our higher education system.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Let this judgment inspire confidence among all stakeholders and reaffirm our shared mission to uphold the university's legacy of knowledge, justice and progress.'
In Nov 2023, controversy erupted after the AMU's executive council shortlisted 'five eligible names'. An AMU professor wrote to the President, claiming 'the process of selecting a new VC was not followed'. The 'AMU court' then forwarded three names, including that of Khatoon, to the ministry of education and the President, and the matter also went to HC.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
31 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Govt launches portal for Waqf properties
The Union government on Friday launched the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) portal, a centralised platform aimed at creating a digital inventory all Waqf properties, with minority affairs minister Kiren Rijiju calling it a 'historic' move that would ensure Waqf assets are utilised effectively and fairly for poor Muslims. 'The UMEED portal will add a new chapter in the history of Waqf property management and administration in India. It will not only bring transparency but will also help the common Muslims, particularly women and children,' Rijiju said after launching the portal. He was accompanied by minister of state for minority affairs George Kurian. Calling it a historic step, Rijiju emphasised that the UMEED central portal — developed by the ministry of minority affairs — is more than just a technological upgrade. 'It is a symbol of the government's firm commitment to safeguarding the rights of minority communities and ensuring that community-owned Waqf assets are utilised effectively and fairly, for the poor Muslims, for whom, it was originally meant,' the Union minister said. The central portal, named after the eponymous UMEED Act of 1995, is intended to streamline the management of Waqf properties, ensure real-time data collection, and provide open access to verified information. It also aims to improve greater transparency, accountability, and public participation, officials familiar with the matter said, adding that all Waqf properties across the country are required to be registered on the portal within six months from the date of launch. Rijiju said that all state waqf board representatives, who participated in the portal launch virtually, have been informed to keep the six-month deadline in mind, while pointing out that not adhering to the same would cause additional delays and 'trouble' for the ministry. Registrations will be carried out by the respective state Waqf boards. Properties that remain unregistered beyond the deadline, and extension, if any, will be classified as disputed and referred to the Waqf tribunal, officials said. Ministry of minority affairs secretary Chandra Shekhar Kumar said the UMEED portal will mandate submission of official documents for registering a Waqf property, aiming to prevent the inclusion of 'illegal or encroached' land. For properties lacking such documentation, he added, the mutawalli will be required to approach the waqf tribunal for verification. Notably, the portal also includes a field that asks whether the waqf property is located on government land. 'Since land is a state subject, it will ultimately be up to the state government to confirm or deny whether the land in question is indeed waqf,' Kumar told HT. The portal launch comes in the backdrop of the enactment of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, on April 5 this year. Several petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Act are pending before the Supreme Court. The development comes a day after the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) opposed the launch of the portal in view of the petitions against the Waqf law being pending before the apex court. Rijiju, however, said, 'I hope the court recognises that this is a landmark law, and it has now been enacted. The opposition must accept this fact and cooperate with the government to ensure smooth implementation. As for the Waqf rules, it is a natural process—we are actively working on it.' According to the guidelines, properties must be registered with detailed descriptions including dimensions, ownership documents, and geotagged locations. Properties recorded under the names of women will not be eligible to be declared as Waqf. Ministry secretary Kumar said that women, children, and economically weaker sections will be among the primary beneficiaries of Waqf assets. The portal generates a 17-digit unique identification number for each property. It features dropdown-based structured data input, integration with GIS mapping and e-Governance tools, and an online grievance redressal mechanism. Public users will have access to basic property information. A three-tier user verification process has been instituted. The 'Maker' is a mutawalli or an authorised person of the Waqf Board who will initiate data entry. The 'Checker' is a district-level officer or a designated official to verify the data. The 'Approver' is the CEO or another officer authorised by the State or UT Waqf Board who will grant final approval. All data on the portal will be governed by existing data protection and privacy regulations. A toll-free helpline has been made available for technical assistance and support.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Video proof, priest affidavit now must for marriage certs in UP
Ghaziabad: UP govt has announced significant reforms in its marriage registration policy, mandating video evidence of ceremonies and physical verification of priests. The new directives, issued on Friday following an Allahabad High Court order, said priests must submit notarised affidavits, appear as witnesses on behalf of couples at registration offices and possess a pen drive containing videos of the wedding. Marriage registrars would now accept applications from couples only if one of them is a permanent resident of that particular district. The govt move follows an HC order from May 12, seeking to address a rise in forged certificates and false documents linked to bogus marriages. The court was hearing a writ petition filed by a Greater Noida couple who claimed to have got married in Arya Samaj Mandir in June last year and secured a registration certificate in Ghaziabad. During the hearing, the court found that the certificate lacked the priest's name, the registered address of the Arya Samaj Mandir, and details of witnesses. The couple also did not appear before the local police, but sent a request seeking protection from their families from the post-office located on the HC premises. The HC ordered a probe into widespread irregularities in the state's marriage registration system, particularly in districts like Ghaziabad, Noida and Prayagraj. The scale of the problem became evident when the probe revealed that Ghaziabad alone recorded 29,022 marriages between Aug 2023 and Aug 2024 – nearly 10 times more than other key districts like Prayagraj (2,019), Gorakhpur (2,284), and Varanasi (2,711). More startlingly, smaller districts like Shrawasti and Chitrakoot registered only 51 and 112 marriages, respectively, during the same period. The investigations also revealed that couples from places like Ahmedabad claimed to have solemnised their marriages in Maharashtra, yet obtained registrations in Ghaziabad to secure court protection orders. In these cases, supporting documents such as Aadhaar and PAN cards often turned out to be forged or altered. Other fraudulent practices included certificates issued by non-existent societies, fictitious witnesses, and cases where minors were presented as adult brides. The HC also observed that the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017, offered limited safeguards. For instance, these rules did not require applicants to declare specific customs observed during the wedding, while the digital registration portal provided no means for marriage officers to reject suspicious requests or track those denied. Concerned about widespread exploitation of these gaps, the HC recommended amendments to the 2017 rules. Until then, the measures announced by the govt will stay. "Under the new directives, marriage registration applications will only be accepted from couples if any one present with them is a permanent resident of the district where they are applying. This applies to either the bride, groom, or their parents. Temporary accommodation documents, such as unregistered rent agreements, will no longer be considered valid proof of residence," said Pushpendra Kumar, assistant inspector-general (AIG, stamps), Ghaziabad. In cases where a couple register their marriage without parental consent, the priest who performs the ceremony must be physically present at the time of registration. "They need to submit affidavits with complete details and video evidence," Kumar said. The notification, signed by inspector-genera (stamps) Sameer Verma, allows marriage officials some flexibility if parents or adult family members from both sides are present. "If parents or adult family members of both parties are present and vouch for the marriage, the marriage registration officer may waive the video and priest affidavit requirements, provided they're satisfied with the marriage's authenticity," the notification read. Each registration performed under the new rules would have a special stamp, while the priest's affidavit and related documents would be subject to thorough verification. District offices would have to maintain a separate register containing credentials of the priest, such as their Aadhaar details, phone numbers, and photographs. "We applied the residency rule locally in Ghaziabad back in April in keeping with the high court's interim directions. The other rules will also be implemented with immediate effect," AIG Kumar said. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
If there was crime, a culpable act, why wasn't it punished, asks V-P Dhankhar
A more than three-decade-old judicial order has rendered the government of the day 'handicapped' and 'provides a virtually impregnable cover' to HC judges against whom an FIR cannot be lodged, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar Friday said. Dhankhar's remarks came on the Justice Yashwant Varma episode during an interaction with a delegation of the Punjab and Haryana HC Bar Association. 'The government of the day is handicapped. It can't register an FIR because there is a judicial order, which is more than three decades old. It provides a virtually impregnable cover. Unless permission is accorded by a functionary at the highest level in the judiciary, an FIR can't be registered… why was that permission not given? That was the minimum that could have been done at the earliest occasion,' Dhankhar said, as per an official statement issued after the interaction. The Centre has reached out to all political parties to build a consensus before bringing a motion of impeachment against Justice Varma during the monsoon session of the Parliament. Dhankhar, however, asked if bringing a motion to remove a judge, is the answer. 'If a crime was committed, a culpable act shaking the foundations of democracy, why wasn't it punished? We have lost more than three months, and the investigation has not even been initiated. Whenever you go to court, they ask why the FIR was delayed,' he said. In an apparent reference to the SC-appointed committee in the mater, he asked, 'Does the committee of judges have a constitutional sanction? Does it have statutory sanction? Can its report result in any outcome? Can the report, by itself, be actionable? The Constitution says mechanism to remove a judge can be initiated either in Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha… this committee cannot substitute for an FIR investigation'. Without naming Justice Varma, he said a 'very painful' incident happened mid-March in Delhi when 'there was a cash haul, obviously tainted, unaccounted, illegal and unexplained' at the residence of a sitting judge. The incident appeared in the public domain after 6-7 days, he said. '… We don't know if it was an isolated incident. Whenever such a cash haul is made, the system has to find out whose money was it. What was the money trail? Are big sharks (involved)? Did the money influence judicial work?'
