Economist Ajit Ranade’s ouster sparks debate on governance and academic integrity

Ranade, a PhD holder from Brown University, degrees from top Indian institutes like IIM Ahmedabad and IIT Bombay, who has held leadership positions in the corporate sector, was removed from the post of vice-chancellor on September 14 following a report by a staff inquiry committee (FFC) that probed complaints of irregularities in his appointment and found that his qualifications “did not meet the norms specified in the University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines”.

The letter was issued by GIPE Chancellor Bibek Debroy, which sparked outrage in various sectors, including academia, politics and intellectuals. Many criticized the decision, expressing concerns about its impact on the reputation and autonomy of the institution.

According to Bhushan Patwardhan, former vice-chairman of the UGC and former chairman of the NAAC Executive Committee, the UGC regulations need to be adapted to modern times.

“New Edge universities need top-notch professionals and visionaries to lead and innovate. Paper qualifications alone should not be enough, and qualitative assessment is necessary for such senior positions,” Patwardhan said.

Terming Ranade’s removal as an “unfortunate incident”, Patwardhan said, “A person of eminence should be enough as a qualification. Let the selection committee decide who that person should be. That decision should be left to the selection committees without any external interference.”

Although there were numerous allegations against Ranade, Debroy’s decision, citing the FFC report, focused solely on his lack of the required ten years of academic experience – a criterion that some say was strategically used to oust the economist.

Questions about the appointment procedure

The issue of Ranade’s removal is not the first time that GIPE has faced a leadership turmoil. Over the past two decades, the institute, once considered a centre of academic excellence, has witnessed several controversies over the appointment of its VCs. For almost a decade, the institute had no permanent VC, with temporary responsibilities being handed over to faculty members.

The ongoing leadership crises have had a serious impact on institutional morale and the academic environment, causing delays in promotions, research output and recruitment processes.

Interestingly, the lead complainant, Murli Krishna, who raised the issue of Ranade’s eligibility, was himself suspended from GIPE in 2018 over allegations of misconduct, while Rande took over in February 2022 for a period of five years.

Krishna said, “Then Chancellor Rajiv Kumar, who was also the Vice-Chairman of Niti Ayog, appointed Ranade for the post of VC. The search and selection committee had one member nominated by the UGC, one person nominated by the GIPE board and the third member of the committee was nominated by the Chancellor. There were at least 45 applications, including those who met the criteria of 10 years of teaching experience. Besides, the committee recommended four names for the post of VC, the remaining three had good teaching experience, but out of them, Ranade was appointed for the post.”

“Why didn’t the chancellor oppose the nomination at the time? The fact is that the committee committed irregularities in the nomination procedure,” he said.

Talking about his dismissal from the institute, Krishna said, “In 2012, I, along with four other colleagues, had complained to the higher officials about the mismanagement at the institute along with all the evidence. But instead of taking action, we were dismissed in 2013. We filed a petition against it in the Bombay High Court and the court stayed the institute’s decision and ordered a departmental inquiry into the matter. Later in 2017, three of my colleagues were dismissed and one has already quit. After a year, I was also dismissed for the second time in 2018.”

“The remaining three persons have filed a petition in the Bombay High Court and the matter is still pending, while I have chosen not to file a petition,” he said.

When we contacted Debroy, he said, “I have no say in the matter.”

Financial irregularities and internal divisions

Two faculty members, speaking anonymously, pointed to several factors that contributed to the friction between Ranade and internal staff. They argued that while Ranade sought to transform GIPE into a more “corporate institution,” his approach was at odds with the ethos of a public, autonomous institute. His decision to raise fees while introducing new “high-paying” faculty positions alienated both students and long-time faculty members.

“The institute has increased fees by 7% for various courses,” says a GIPE official, who asked not to be named.

The situation was further aggravated by the controversial transfer of Ranade ₹1.50 crore to Servants of India Society (SIS), the parent body of GIPE, for extending the lease of land in Nagpur. As per UGC guidelines, such transfers of funds are prohibited and this alleged misuse of funds has led to legal complications.

Pravin Raut, member of SIS, said, “In Nagpur, SIS has been owning 27,000 sq ft of land since 1911. The lease agreement of the land expires in 2030 and for its renewal, the SIS secretary has demanded over ₹1 crore from GIPE in 2022. The institute has transferred ₹1.50 crore in October 2023, while the actual expenditure was ₹1.20 crore. The amount shown in expenditure was higher and furthermore, even though SIS is the parent body of GIPE, the funds cannot be transferred as per law.”

A Divided Campus

Ranade’s tenure divided GIPE into two camps—those who supported his vision and those who saw his policies as detrimental to the institution’s core mission. While he pushed for development projects and new courses, he sometimes met resistance from faculty members who felt the VC approach was too “commercial” for a public research institution.

“The institute has started two courses, so the number of students, which was around 1,000 earlier, has gone up to 1,500 in the last two years. The institute has set up a new hostel and new staff have been assigned to the VC office,” said a GIPE official, requesting anonymity.

While another faculty member noted, “You cannot run a public institution like GIPE as if it were a corporate entity. These institutes are not meant to generate profits but to provide quality education to students from all sections of society.”

Ranade’s Next Steps

Ranade, who has now approached the Bombay High Court to challenge his dismissal, argued in his petition that the dismissal was illegal and did not take into account the relevant facts. The Supreme Court stayed the economist’s dismissal till September 23, when the matter was listed for hearing.

In his petition, Ranade argues that his dismissal violates his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Ranade declined to comment, saying the matter was not subject to court review.

The future of GIPE

The outcome of the case will not only define Ranade’s status as VC but also set a precedent for how public educational institutions in India are run. The controversy has already tarnished the reputation of GIPE, with many faculty members calling for a quick resolution that puts the interests of students and the institute first, especially with the annual meeting less than two weeks away.

Naresh Bodkhe, a professor at GIPE, said, “Faculty and administration may come and go, but the institution remains. Everyone involved in this matter must prioritize the future of students and the institute’s position in the academic community.”

Ranade’s future may be hanging in the balance, but the bigger question remains: can GIPE recover from another leadership crisis, or is this merely a symptom of deeper systemic problems in the governance of public universities in India?