The Supreme Court has given time to the Union government till next Friday to file reply to the petition filed by the alumni association and the administration of Indian Institute of Management (Ahmedabad), which alleged that the Union government was interfering in its administration.
"I need time to seek the instructions," Mukul Rohtagi, additional solicitor general of India, told the court.
The IIM Controversy: Complete Coverage
The court gave a week's time to the Centre to clarify its stand on the commitment not to interfere with the functioning of the prestigious business schools and to provide adequate funds in view of the drastic reduction of the admission fee from Rs 150,000 to Rs 30,000.
The bench gave time till March 19 to the additional solcitor general in view of an application seeking recording of the government's stand.
The application filed by Sandeep Parikh and two others said the court had on February 27 disposed of their PIL on the assurance of the Centre that the fee reduction did not amount to interference in the functioning of the six IIMs and that it would make good the shortfall in the funds due to fee cut.
Terming the application as "malafide", Rohtagi stated that it was a clear stand from the government on the basis of which the court had disposed of the PIL and that the petitioners were raking up the issue again linking the decision to the autonomy of the institutes.
He said if the "autonomy" word was added to the undertaking, any decision taken by the government vis-a-vis these business schools would result in contempt proceedings.
The chief justice said if the government gave the undertaking not to interfere in the functioning of the IIMs, the court would clarify that any future litigation on the issue of interference in the "autonomy" of the institutes would have to be agitated before appropriate forums as a separate litigation.
Appearing for the applicants, senior advocate Harish Salve took strong exception to the use of word "malafide" and said none of the applicants nor the counsel associated with were aspiring to play any role in the management of IIMs.
Repeating the accusation, the additional solicitor general said that "the government knows who are the people behind the issue being blown out of proportions."
However, he said that he would consult the ministry on the issue and get back to the court. The court asked him to tell the response of the government within a week and posted the matter for further hearing on March 19.
The applicants have sought recording of two undertakings from the government -- first, that the government had no intention to interfere with the autonomy of these institutions which would become more dependant on the Centre for funds in view of the drastic cut in fees.
Secondly, the government should make it absolutely clear that as and when necessary make available funds to IIMs to cope with the shortfall of funds arising from the reduction of the fee from Rs 150,000 per annum to Rs 30,000 per annum.
In case the government was not willing to expressly give these undertakings, the court should recall its order and restore the petitions for hearing on merit, they said.
Immediately after the apex court upheld the decision to cut fees, Union HRD Minister had said: "The government never interfered with the autonomy of these institutions nor it will in future. I completely respect their autonomy."