Muslims see bias, selective scrutiny, and efforts to undermine historic achievement of first woman leader at one of India’s most respected centres of education
NEW DELHI — The appointment of Prof Naeema Khatoon as the Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has come under intense scrutiny after the Supreme Court questioned the process that led to her selection. The apex court highlighted that her husband, Prof Muhammad Gulrez, was a member of the Executive Council panel at the time her name was being considered. The court remarked that his presence during the proceedings “creates suspicion,” raising concerns about conflict of interest.
The case was heard on Monday by a three-member bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran, and Justice NV Anjaria. The bench observed: “Normally, when we sit in the collegium, even if the name of a junior from the bar is being considered, we recuse ourselves. When the name of somebody’s spouse is considered, the husband’s involvement creates suspicion.”
This development has sparked reactions across the country, particularly within the Muslim community, which views the scrutiny as disproportionate and indicative of a larger pattern of selective targeting of Muslim institutions.
Prof Naeema Khatoon’s appointment was celebrated as a milestone in Indian education. She became the first woman Vice-Chancellor in the more than 100-year history of AMU, a university founded by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in 1875 to advance modern education among Indian Muslims.
The historic nature of her appointment was highlighted by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who argued in court: “Prof Naeema Khatoon is a woman with an excellent academic record who has created history by becoming the first woman Vice-Chancellor of AMU.”
Her appointment represents more than just personal achievement; it is a symbol of progress for Muslim women and a reflection of decades of struggle for representation in academic leadership positions traditionally dominated by men.
The controversy stems from the fact that Prof Muhammad Gulrez, her husband, served as the Acting Vice-Chancellor at the time her name was considered by the Executive Council. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, argued: “The appointment is invalid because her husband presided over the meeting when his wife’s name was under consideration. If Vice-Chancellors are appointed in this way, I shudder to think what will happen in the future.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta acknowledged that the Acting Vice-Chancellor should ordinarily recuse himself in such situations but defended the process, stating: “When the law of participation has to be fulfilled, the process cannot be called defective.”
The bench also noted that the Allahabad High Court had previously upheld her appointment, but the petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging that decision.
During the hearing, Justice Chandran recused himself from the case. He explained that as the former Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University (CNLU), he had previously appointed one of the petitioners, Prof Faizan Mustafa, to a leadership position. He stated: “The matter here is about impartiality. It is appropriate for me to recuse myself.”
Solicitor General Mehta attempted to persuade him otherwise, saying: “You do not need to recuse yourself. We have full confidence in you, even if you had chosen him earlier, you can still take the decision.”
Despite the assurances, Justice Chandran stood firm, reflecting the sensitivity of potential conflicts of interest in matters of institutional leadership. The Chief Justice ordered that the case be referred to a new bench without Justice Chandran.
The Muslim community has expressed strong concern over the scrutiny of Prof Khatoon’s appointment, viewing it as an attempt to undermine a historic achievement for Muslim women in India.
Dr Rahman, a retired AMU professor, told Clarion India over the phone: “This is not just about legality. It is about targeting. Whenever a Muslim institution achieves something significant, there are attempts to raise doubts. Why was there no such uproar when similar issues occurred in other universities?”
AMU students also expressed frustration. Shabana, a postgraduate student, said: “For us, Prof Naeema Khatoon’s appointment is a moment of pride. Instead of celebrating that a Muslim woman has reached this position, they are questioning her dignity. This shows bias.”
Community leaders argue that questioning the first woman Vice-Chancellor of AMU sends a discouraging message to Muslim women aspiring for leadership roles in education. Advocate Mohammad Imran, practicing in Delhi, said: “This is about undermining a Muslim woman’s achievement. If the court sets aside her appointment, it will not just be Naeema Khatoon who suffers, but the entire community will feel humiliated.”
Founded in 1875 by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, AMU was designed to provide modern education to Indian Muslims and foster socio-economic upliftment. Over the decades, it has produced leaders, scholars, and professionals who have contributed not only to India’s development but also to the empowerment of the Muslim community.
AMU has historically faced scrutiny and interference in its administration. From colonial-era restrictions to post-independence political controversies, the university has been a target for those uncomfortable with its influence and prominence among Indian Muslims.
Prof Naeema Khatoon’s appointment, therefore, is not just an administrative decision but a symbolic assertion of Muslim identity and women’s leadership in education.
The petition against Prof Khatoon reflects a broader pattern of challenges faced by Muslim institutions in the country. Experts note that Muslim universities and colleges often undergo closer scrutiny and criticism compared to other educational bodies, with legal and political challenges frequently questioning leadership decisions.
Dr Amina Qureshi, an education policy analyst, observed: “Muslim institutions are constantly under the microscope. Achievements are questioned, while similar appointments in other universities rarely receive such attention. This sends a message that Muslims must defend their success at every step.”
Prof Khatoon’s appointment also highlights the progress of Muslim women in education. For decades, women in the community faced societal and structural barriers to leadership positions. Her selection as Vice-Chancellor signals gradual but significant change.
Dr Shazia Farooqi, a former AMU lecturer, said: “Having a woman lead AMU is a milestone for Muslim women everywhere. It proves that academic merit and leadership qualities are being recognised, even in conservative spaces.”
Students and alumni see her appointment as inspirational, motivating a new generation of Muslim women to pursue education and leadership roles.
The Supreme Court’s remarks about the potential conflict of interest have legal significance. Experts say that while the presence of a spouse on the council can raise questions, selective challenges against Muslim leaders suggest a deeper bias.
Kapil Sibal’s argument that Prof Khatoon’s appointment is “invalid” because her husband presided over meetings raises questions about consistency. Legal analysts point out that in many universities, such overlaps in administrative roles have not led to similar petitions.
Dr Farhan, a legal scholar in Delhi, said: “The law must be applied uniformly. Targeting AMU in this case sends a signal that Muslim institutions are more vulnerable to legal challenges, regardless of merit or historical significance.”
Inside AMU, the atmosphere is a mix of pride and anxiety. Faculty members support the Vice-Chancellor and caution against politicising the issue.
Prof Saleem Khan, from the Department of History, said: “Prof Khatoon has earned this position through decades of hard work. The allegations against her are not about competence but about appearances. We hope the court recognises her merit and the historical significance of her appointment.”
Students echoed these sentiments. Ahmed, a final-year undergraduate, stated: “We are proud that a Muslim woman is leading our university. Attempts to question her appointment feel like an attack on the entire community.”
The case is now more than just a legal matter. It is being perceived as a test of India’s commitment to equal treatment for Muslims and Muslim institutions. Legal experts and social commentators argue that the outcome will have broader implications for Muslim leadership and women’s advancement in education.
Dr Imran Qadri, a sociologist, said: “If the appointment of the first woman Vice-Chancellor of AMU is overturned on procedural grounds, it will have an adverse effect. Muslim institutions may face greater hesitation in promoting deserving leaders, particularly women.”
The Supreme Court has directed that the matter be heard by a new bench excluding Justice Chandran. The final verdict is awaited, but the case has already sparked nationwide discussion on the rights and recognition of Muslim women in leadership roles.
University officials maintain that the process followed was legally correct and in line with AMU’s governance regulations. A senior AMU official said: “This is not just about one Vice-Chancellor. This is about the honour of AMU and the dignity of Muslims in India.”
Prof Naeema Khatoon’s appointment represents decades of progress for Indian Muslims, particularly women, in higher education. While legal scrutiny is expected, the controversy has highlighted an uncomfortable reality: Muslim institutions and leaders continue to face selective challenges, even when appointments are based on merit.
As Dr Rahman summarised: “Every step of progress for Muslims is monitored more strictly than others. We must celebrate achievements like Prof Khatoon’s, not question them. Her success is the success of the entire community.”
For Indian Muslims, the outcome of this case will be more than a legal decision; it will be a statement on fairness, dignity, and the recognition of merit within the country’s academic and social framework.
