PIL in Delhi HC alleges illegal tenure extension, governance breach in Association of Indian Universities

New Delhi [India], December 21 (ANI): A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Delhi High Court alleging serious and systematic violations of statutory bye-laws, democratic governance principles and institutional integrity within the Association of Indian Universities (AIU), a premier national body coordinating higher education institutions across India.
The petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleges that the AIU's former President unlawfully continued in office beyond his prescribed tenure by misusing administrative directions and bypassing mandatory approval processes.
The PIL has been instituted by RTI activist and whistle-blower Dr Jaipal, who claims to have no personal, private or pecuniary interest in the matter. According to the petition, the alleged illegality stems from unilateral actions taken by AIU's former President in proposing a restructuring of the AIU in the name of alignment with the National Education Policy (NEP), without obtaining approval from the General Council or the Annual General Meeting, the only competent bodies empowered under the AIU Memorandum and Bye-laws to take such policy decisions.
The petition further alleges that, acting solely on this unauthorised proposal, the Ministry of Education issued an order on June 23, 2025, constituting a High-Powered Committee to examine the restructuring of the AIU and directing the maintenance of the "status quo" for six months, or until the committee's recommendations were received.
The petition, likely to come for a hearing on December 24, claims that this status quo direction, intended to preserve institutional stability, was allegedly misused by the then-President to justify an illegal continuation of his own tenure.
According to the PIL, Clause 21 of the AIU Bye-laws clearly prescribes fixed tenure limits for the office of the President. The Governing Council, in its meeting dated April 14, 2024, had unanimously resolved that upon expiry of the President's term on June 30, 2024, the senior-most Vice-Chancellor would assume charge as President for one year starting July 1, 2024.
Despite this binding resolution, the former director allegedly continued in office and later sought to legitimise the continuation by engineering a Governing Council resolution, notwithstanding written dissent from the Vice-President and other Governing Council members.
The petition describes the alleged extension of tenure as a "manifestly illegal and colourable exercise of power", asserting that any such extension required explicit approval of the General Council or the Annual General Body Meeting, which was admittedly never obtained.
The petitioner claims that the situation led to a breakdown of democratic functioning within the AIU, culminating in the Vice-President's resignation in protest, leaving the post vacant.
Dr Jaipal states that before approaching the High Court, he exhausted all available remedies by submitting detailed representations to the Prime Minister's Office, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the AIU General Council and individual members, highlighting the alleged illegal continuation and governance violations. However, no corrective action was taken, leaving judicial intervention as the only remedy.
The PIL relies on several Supreme Court precedents to underscore that courts are duty-bound to intervene when office-bearers allegedly perpetuate their tenure in contravention of statutory provisions, thereby undermining transparency, accountability, and democratic governance in public institutions.
Emphasising the AIU's critical role in coordinating more than 1,000 universities across India and its international associate members, the petition seeks judicial directions to declare the alleged extension of the President's tenure illegal, enforce strict compliance with the AIU Memorandum and Bye-laws, restore democratic governance and prevent further misuse of authority within the institution.
The PIL has been filed through Advocate Chirantan Saha, with Chirantan Saha & Associates representing the petitioner before the Delhi High Court. (ANI)