HC upholds appointment of AMU's 1st woman vice-chancellor
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
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stray dog order spotlights poor pet registration in Delhi
The Supreme Court's recent directive to relocate stray dogs in Delhi-NCR has put the spotlight on another long-standing problem — the capital's dismal pet dog registration rate. Despite it being mandatory under Section 399 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (MCD) Act, only 5,767 pet dogs are registered in the city, with 381 applications pending, according to MCD data. The Supreme Court ruling on Monday had outright rejected the idea of stray dogs being adopted. It focused solely on relocation of community dogs and made no specific directive on pet dog registration. (AFP/Representational image) Officials warn that this gap leaves a dangerous grey area between pets and strays, opening the door to disputes and misuse of the complaint system. 'Registration and the token serve as proof of ownership. With the recent SC judgment, we expect a surge in applications, especially for adopted indigenous breeds,' said a senior MCD official. Non-registration can attract fines and prosecution under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita dealing with negligent behaviour with respect to animals. The Act also allows detention of unregistered dogs found in public places, a step veterinary officials say is rarely enforced. Experts warn that poor compliance risks deepening confusion and triggering disputes. Gauri Maulekhi, activist and trustee at People for Animals (PFA), said the lack of registration creates a grey area between pets and community dogs. 'Some people collar strays, keep them indoors for long periods, or adopt indies as full-fledged pets. If neither strays nor pets are tagged, it's bound to cause confusion,' she said, adding that this could even pit neighbours against each other. 'A neighbour might report my dog as a stray, or conversely, collar a stray and claim it's a long-time pet.' The Supreme Court ruling on Monday had outright rejected the idea of stray dogs being adopted. It focused solely on relocation of community dogs and made no specific directive on pet dog registration. Asher Jesudoss, whose 2022 plea in the Delhi high court led to the creation of the Delhi Animal Welfare Board, said that since very few dogs are registered in Delhi, one can find it difficult to differentiate between pets and strays. 'As the name suggests, community dogs are those that belong to the entire community. But nothing stops an individual from collaring the stray and taking it indoors and keeping it as a pet. As per our rules, all breeds and dogs need to be registered. MCD needs to register all pets as proving ownership otherwise becomes tricky,' he said. Pet registration can be done online, with a uniform ₹500 fee. A veterinary official said actual registrations are far below the real number of pets. 'We issue a brass token for the dog's collar, which also lets us track vaccination status,' the official added.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Delhi High Court Rules Victim Compensation Scheme Not Applicable Retrospectively; 1984 Riot Claim Rejected
New Delhi: In a significant ruling, Delhi High Court has said the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme (DVCS) can't be applied retrospectively, rejecting a plea for compensation by a victim of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Clarifying the legal position, a bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar also noted that DVCS compensation can be paid only in cases where victims have not already received money under other govt compensation schemes. The court was hearing a plea by a family that lost its breadwinner in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots following Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's assassination. Avtar Singh, a Sikh, was killed by a rampaging mob in the Raj Nagar area of Palam. The men accused were later acquitted in 1986. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi | Gold Rates Today in Delhi | Silver Rates Today in Delhi The HC traced the DVCS's origin to Section 357A of the erstwhile CrPC, which dealt with victim compensation. It opined that since the scheme owes its existence to Section 357A, it should apply prospectively. It added that "retrospective application of either the provisions of Section 357A of the CrPC or the DVCS would open the floodgates for all and sundry to rake up old and stale claims seeking compensation, be it for an incident occurring just before the introduction of the scheme or three decades prior, like in the present case." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What does it take to be an air traffic controller in Singapore? CNA Read More Undo While rejecting the compensation claim, HC noted that the complainant, Baljeet Kaur, disclosed in an affidavit that her family had already received a total of Rs 11,90,000 from the govt for the death of her father, Avtar Singh, in the 1984 Sikh riots. "Clause 4 (of DVCS) restricts eligibility for compensation to victims or their dependents who have not been compensated for the loss or injury under any other scheme of the Central Govt or State Govt. This clarifies that the DVCS was formed as an umbrella scheme to provide relief to those victims who have been deprived of compensation through any other scheme or Act," HC noted, after amicus curiae appointed in the matter, Senior Advocate Sumeet Verma, argued that Singh's family is entitled to additional compensation under DVCS. The bench noted that the "incident in question took place in the year 1984, and since then, multiple schemes have been introduced by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India, and later adopted and implemented by state govts, including the Delhi govt. A review of these schemes shows that the total monetary benefit, without indexation, would surpass the upper limit of compensation prescribed under the DVCS. The govt has taken additional initiatives to reimburse the victims for property damage and loss, and skill development as well. " While this case was one of five reopened in 2017 due to a botched investigation into the 1984 riots, the verdict narrowed down on the issue of compensation payable, after it emerged that accused Mahender Singh Manan, also known as Mahender Sharabi, and Ram Kumar, are now dead. However, HC made it clear that its ruling won't exclude any victims affected by the riots who have not received compensation under any schemes from lodging their claims under other existing schemes. The bench directed that such claims be verified by authorities within a period of sixteen weeks of receipt and, if approved, payments be made within a period of eight weeks. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
DA case: Mohali court defers Majithia's bail plea to August 13
A local court on Tuesday once again deferred the decision on the bail plea of senior Shiromani Akali Dal leader and former Punjab minister Bikramjit Singh Majithia, who remains in judicial custody since July 6 in connection with a disproportionate assets case. Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia remains in judicial custody since July 6 in connection with a disproportionate assets case. (PTI) The hearing on the bail plea took place on Tuesday, during which lawyers from both sides presented their arguments for about an hour. However, no verdict was announced and the court posted the matter for August 13. The court was also expected to pronounce its decision on Majithia's plea seeking a change of barrack in jail. After hearing arguments on this petition as well, the court reserved its decision until August 21. Majithia's counsel told reporters that this was the sixth time the court had deferred his client's bail plea. He alleged that the Punjab government was deliberately delaying the matter and had failed to substantiate its claims. On June 25, Majithia was arrested by the Vigilance Bureau at his residence in Amritsar in connection with the disproportionate assets case. He is currently lodged in Nabha Jail. The disproportionate assets case against Majithia stems from an ongoing investigation by a special investigation team (SIT) of the Punjab Police, which is also probing his alleged involvement in the 2021 drug case. Majithia had earlier been booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, based on a 2018 report submitted by the state's Anti-Drug Special Task Force (STF). He spent over five months in Patiala Jail before being granted bail by the Punjab and Haryana high court in August 2022.
