Govt refuses IIM autonomy undertaking

Supreme Court revives PIL against fee cut.

The Supreme Court yesterday revived a petition challenging the decision to cut the annual fee at the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) by 80 per cent as the Union government refused to give an undertaking that the fee cut would not lead to its interference in the autonomy of the institutes.

In view of the inability expressed by the Centre to give a written undertaking, a Bench comprising Chief Justice V N Khare, Justice S B Sinha and Justice S H Kapadia decided to revive the public interest litigation filed by Advocate Sandeep and two others and to recall its February 27 order disposing of the petition.

However, Additional Solicitor-General Mukul Rohtagi said the government still stood by its February 27 statement that the fee cut would not amount to its interference in the functioning of the institutes.

He indicated that the government was ready to promise not to interfere in the functioning of the institutes but had reservations over the use of the word "autonomy" in place of "functioning" as it had wider connotations.

In view of the inability of the government to tender an undertaking, the court issued a notice to the Centre on the application of the petitioners seeking revival of their public interest litigation.

While setting April 8 for the hearing on the petition, the Bench recalled its February 16 order questioning the locus standi of the petitioners to challenge the government's decision to reduce fees and asking them to supply the balance sheets of the IIMs.

When the application was listed on March 12, the apex court had asked the additional solicitor-general to get back to it with instructions from the government on whether it could give an undertaking not to interfere with the autonomy of the institutes.

"The government has thought over the matter and it is not possible to give a guarantee as proposed by the petitioners," Rohtagi said.

Recording the inability of the government to give the undertaking, the Bench revived the February 16 order and allowed the petitioners to implead the IIMs as parties to the case.

On February 16, the Supreme Court had observed that these institutes of excellence should not be accessible only to the elite, and had sought to know the basis for charging an annual fee of Rs 1.5 lakh per student.

"Who are you, what is your locus standi?" the Bench had asked the petitioners and had observed, "If the IIMs are satisfied with the government's decision, who are you to challenge it?"

The petitioners had contended that the government wanted to make the IIMs dependent on it for funds.