Resolution of the Faculty Council, IIM Calcutta
Adopted in the Faculty Council Meeting Held on April 7, 2004
on the Resolution Framed by the Chairman, IIMC
Pertaining to MHRD’s Order on the Reduction of Fees

This refers to the resolution dated April 6, 2004 framed by Mr. Y.C. Deveshwar, Chairman, Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, pertaining to the MHRD’s order on the reduction of fees. This resolution has been circulated to the media as the resolution of the Board of Governors without the endorsement of the Board. The operative part of the resolution is that the Government Order may be implemented in the belief that it is binding on the Institute and the decision has been taken in view of a) “the assurance given by the Ministry that the financial consequences of implementing the Government Order will be fully funded by the Government” and b) “the explicit understanding that the fee cut will not result in any infringement of the empowerment of the Board as contained in the Memorandum of Association and that the empowerment of the Director and the Faculty bodies operating with the Memorandum of Association will not be curbed as a consequence”.

The resolution framed by Mr. Deveshwar, in our view, already causes severe infringement of the authority of the Board of Governors, Director and the Faculty as it starts with the assumption that the Government Order is binding on the Institute. If the Government can issue orders unilaterally and if such orders are binding on the Institute, then the question arises what remains within the authority of the Board and other constituents of the Institute. The rationale provided by Mr. Deveshwar does not recognize that an Institute such as IIM Calcutta is an autonomous institution that is registered under the Societies Registration Act. If the Central Government and the State Government wanted the Institute to be a Government Department then such a registration would not have been done.

Mr. Deveshwar’s resolution can be faulted on other grounds as well. He is aware that the matter of the fee cut is under consideration of the Supreme Court and thus sub-judice in the light of the MHRD refusing to give written assurance regarding autonomy. Surprisingly, Mr. Deveshwar has yet found it possible to repose faith in the oral assurance of the MHRD officials. There was no reason to rush through a resolution before the opinion of the Supreme Court was made known. Further, he is aware that the legality of the 164^th Board Meeting held on March 26, 2004 has been questioned during the meeting and also later. The decision of IIM Bangalore not to allow inadmissible replacements in its Board meeting provides a different mode of institutional response. He is also aware that the Government Order may be questioned in terms of irregularity arising out of keeping the State Government completely out of the picture and also with respect to the model code of conduct of the Election Commission. To brush aside these questions as belonging to the domains of the State Government and the Election Commission is to deny any responsibility that conventionally is discharged by the person who chairs a meeting and is expected in good faith to ensure that the legality of the meeting or a decision taken in the meeting is beyond reasonable doubt.

Mr. Deveshwar has assured all concerned that diverse views expressed on the issue of the fee cut have been heard. There is no evidence of this in the resolution nor is there any evidence of even a symbolic gesture made by him of ascertaining the views of different stakeholders such as the faculty, students, alumni, staff members and the employers of our students. The Faculty has been wanting an interaction with the Chairman and the Board for a long time now. In a message to him dated March 24, 2004 the Faculty Council reiterated its earlier stand that no decision accepting the fee cut should be taken before the Faculty Council has had an opportunity of interacting with the members of the Board. Throughout this controversy going back to the fee cut order of the MHRD dated February 5, 2004, Mr. Deveshwar has not found it possible to meet the Faculty Council even once to interact with it, much less taking initiative in arranging an interactive session between the Board and the Faculty Council. The Faculty Council is thoroughly disappointed at the process adopted by Mr. Deveshwar. If the autonomy of the Institute is compromised and the standing of the Institute is eroded, it does not serve the interests of the Faculty nor of our students or the alumni. By creating a situation of financial insecurity neither the Faculty nor the staff is served. Mr. Deveshwar ignores the fact that during the financial year 2003-04 the MHRD did not release any grant in spite of their commitment, presumably because the revised MOU sent by IIMC was not to the liking of the MHRD.

It leaves us therefore with no option but to conclude that Mr. Deveshwar has taken care of one stakeholder only and that is MHRD. In doing so he has shown little concern for other stakeholders, tolerated infringement of the authority of the Board and presided over a Governing Body meeting of which the legality is in serious question. The autonomy of the Institute is thus eroded. Indeed the Faculty Representatives on the Board had questioned the decision to leave the matter of framing a resolution in the hands of Mr. Deveshwar. Mr. Deveshwar could have followed the example of Mr. Narayana Murthy, Chairman, IIM Ahmedabad, who has shown wisdom in reconciling the concerns of different stakeholders in an exemplary manner. We can also learn from him the merit in moving judiciously.

We request therefore that this resolution is reconsidered by Mr. Deveshwar and a new resolution is drafted by him after really taking into account concerns of all stakeholders. We further request him in all earnestness to initiate a process of mutual consultation and discussion with different stakeholders. A drastic decision like 80 per cent cut in fees should not be undertaken without a serious and detailed study of all its implications. That has not yet been done. We must not sacrifice the interest of an Institution such as IIMC which has been built to its present status by the hard work of many persons, including faculty, staff and students, and by the courage and foresight of many members of previous Boards of Governors over several decades.

Mr. Deveshwar has talked about moving forward in his resolution. The point to consider is whether this move forward is in the reverse direction.