The Gujarat High Court (HC) has quashed the decision of the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIM-A) to expel three PhD students from its Doctoral Programme in Management (DPM) for their “shortfall” in meeting the conditions for promotion from the first to the second year of coursework.
The bench of Justice Nikhil Kariel observed that the decision was “not in consonance” with the procedure prescribed in the Manual of Policies and Procedure for the DPM, in an order made available online on December 9. The court said that the action would thus “be an action without any authority of law”.
The three students who had been expelled and challenged the decision in separate petitions before the HC are Abhilasha Ashok Kumar, Atul Gupta and Uthara P K.
Through their lawyers Anand Yagnik and Biju Nair, the decision was challenged mainly on grounds including non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, failure to follow procedure, violation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, conflict of interest, and that the Manual does not contemplate non-promotion at the end of the first year of coursework.
According to the petitioners, on May 22, they were asked by IIM-A authorities to respond within 24 hours regarding any “extenuating circumstances” for failing to meet the conditions for promotion. They were expelled on June 7, 2025. Their appeals were later rejected by the Director of IIM-A on June 18.
The petitioners’ advocates submitted before the court that the manual contains “review, rectification and remedial measures which have not been offered or recommended” by IIM-A “before taking the extreme measure of expelling.”
They also argued that the decision was “disproportionate and punitive” under the Manual of DPM, adding that “the first two years of the DPM Coursework are preparatory for the DPM, and since the students are from multiple backgrounds, not having a background in management studies, the academic shortfall should have been viewed liberally.”
Story continues below this ad
The counsel for IIM-A argued that all provisions of the Manual concerning procedure had been strictly followed in taking the decisions. The institute also submitted that the petitioners were given adequate opportunity to explain their reasons in writing to the Executive Committee, and the Director gave them an “appropriate” hearing before deciding their appeals.
The court examined various clauses of the DPM Manual before delivering its judgment.
The court observed, “…the course is designed in such a manner to ensure that a student gets reasonable and multiple opportunities to clear the course. Further, the DPM Executive Committee and the Student Evaluation Committee (SEC) were given the responsibility of reviewing the performance, suggesting remedial measures or appropriate course of action, and the Director of the Institute having the final authority in case of an appeal. Thus, the underlying objective is that if a student is meritorious enough to get selected for the course in question, then adequate opportunity should be given to the said student to complete the course, and the idea is very glaringly not to remove a student from the programme at the very first opportunity.”
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
