In an unusual display of urgency, the Supreme Court has on its own decided to advance by a week the hearing of the PIL challenging HRD Minister Murli Manohar Joshi’s controversial decision to slash IIM fees by 80% in the face of widespread public criticism. According to the cause list updated today, a bench headed by Chief Justice V N Khare is due to hear the PIL on Monday though it was originally listed to come up on February 23. The court’s move comes amid increasing pressure from within the government, the party and India Inc to rollback the order. Today, IIM Ahmedabad chairman and Infosys chief N R Narayana Murthy and board member M S Banga, Chairman of Hindustan Lever Ltd, met Prime Minister A B Vajpayee and are reported to have expressed their concern over Joshi’s decision to ‘‘tinker’’ with the IIMs. The initiative shown by Justice Khare is clearly an indication of how seriously the court is taking Joshi’s decision that provoked adverse reactions from IIM faculty, students and the industry. The HRD Ministry’s February 5 order sought to justify the fee reduction and the consequent increase in the IIMs’ dependence on Government funds by quoting out of context the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the T M A Pai case of 2002. Significantly, Justice Khare was part of the 11-judge bench which decided the Pai case. He was also the head of the five-judge bench which subsequently clarified doubts about the Pai verdict. The PIL seeking to make the six IIMs financially independent was filed on February 10 by advocate and IIM visiting faculty Sandeep Parekh and two others, including an IIM student. The Government responded by filing a caveat as a precaution to ensure that the Supreme Court does not take any ex parte decision on the PIL. Justice Khare’s move to hear the PIL earlier is unusual because such a thing normally happens only when the petitioner makes an oral request for it. In this case, the petitioner did not seek an early date. The court acted on its own. Meanwhile, at least two Cabinet Ministers are understood to have told their senior colleagues that the IIM fee cut is not going down well with the government’s ‘‘pro-reforms image’’ as paying for ‘‘elite education’’ defies the current trend of cutting subsidies across the board. This negative buzz in the current feel-good, the Ministers have argued, could be too high a price to pay in return for what the court is taking Joshi’s decision that provoked adverse reactions. The HRD Ministry’s order sought to justify the fee reduction and the consequent increase in the IIMs’ dependence on Government funds by quoting out of context the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the T M A Pai case of 2002. Significantly, Justice Khare was part of the 11-judge bench which decided the Pai case. The PIL seeking to make the six IIMs financially independent was filed on February 10 by advocate and IIM visiting faculty Sandeep Parekh and two others, including an IIM student. The Government responded by filing a caveat as a precaution to ensure that the Supreme Court does not take any ex parte decision on the PIL. Justice Khare’s move to hear the PIL earlier is unusual because such a thing normally happens only when the petitioner makes an oral request for it. In this case, the court acted on its own. Meanwhile, at least two Cabinet Ministers are understood to have told their senior colleagues that the IIM fee cut is not going down well with the government’s ‘‘pro-reforms image’’ as paying for ‘‘elite education’’ defies the current trend of cutting subsidies across the board. Joshi is unfazed. ‘‘There is no rethink in the party.this is my decision and this is the government’s decision,’’ he said. Speaking to The Sunday Express, Murthy said: ‘‘Our meeting with the PM is a confidential one. But as far as the IIM issue is concerned, I have voiced them at several fora. ‘‘There is no doubt that if IIM fees are cut down to Rs 30,000 per year for every student (from the existing Rs 1.5 lakh) it will be a step towards destroying the autonomy of the institution.’’ A feeling echoed by Banga. ‘‘The step is retrogressive. This fee cut is a step backwards and is unnecessary because neither the students, prospective students, faculty or employers are interested in it. So what purpose does it serve?’’
