Education

JNU Teachers Body Holds Public Inquiry Against VC

The teachers body, exercising its powers under the JNU Teachers Association (JNUTA) constitution, set a three-day deadline for the VC to submit his defence. Credit: JNUTA

The teachers body, exercising its powers under the JNU Teachers Association (JNUTA) constitution, set a three-day deadline for the VC to submit his defence. Credit: JNUTA

New Delhi: The JNU teachers’ association today conducted a “public inquiry” against vice chancellor M. Jagadesh Kumar and a five-member jury unanimously held him “guilty” of violating statutory provisions and academic norms.

The jury recommended an inquiry by the president of India – the ex-officio visitor to JNU – against Kumar.

“The jury held him prima facie guilty and unfit to be the VC of JNU. We recommend a visitorial enquiry into the charges and his removal from the office of VC,” the jury said.

Members of the jury were JNU professors Prabhat Patnaik (emeritus), P.K. Yadav, Delhi University professors Nandita Narain and Apoorvanand and senior journalist Akshaya Mukul.

Some of the allegations included undermining the integrity of faculty selection process, violation of reservation policy, harassing teachers, denying their legitimate dues, undermining sexual harassment watchdog GSCASH and callous attitude in missing student Najeeb’s case.

“All the democtatic institutions in all levels including GSCASH are being undermined for a specific agenda. The agenda is not an academic agenda but a destruction of critical thinking, dissent and academics,” Jayati Ghosh, professor of Economics, told the jury.

Prof Amitabh Singh read out statements which Kumar had issued on various occasions countering the allegations against various decisions the administration had taken.

On October 17, JNUTA had announced a “public inquiry” against Kumar for allegedly violating various conventions of the university. The inquiry would continue over the next four days.

  • Anjan Basu

    The PTI report seems to have been filed in a hurry. A statement is ascribed to ‘Prof Ghosh’, without, however, clarifying who Prof Ghosh is. And while the first part of the report talks about the jury’s decision, suggesting that the enquiry has been concluded, the last sentence indicates the process of enquiry will continue ‘over the next four days’. Are we missing something here?