Two landmark appointments, two strikingly similar roadblocks

In a historic first, two of India’s most prestigious minority institutions — St Stephen’s College, Delhi, and St Xavier’s College, Mumbai — appointed women principals in 2025 and 2026. Yet the appointments of Professor Susan Elias and Dr Karuna Gokarn quickly ran into procedural challenges from Delhi University (DU) and Mumbai University respectively, delaying or complicating their formal recognition.

The parallel controversies raise an uncomfortable question: are these routine regulatory disputes, assertions of minority autonomy, or signs of a deeper reluctance to accept women at the helm of elite institutions?

At St Stephen’s, DU intervened days after Prof. Elias’s selection was announced on 12 May 2026. In a 14 May directive, registrar Vikas Gupta cited alleged violations of UGC Regulations 2018, arguing that the selection committee lacked mandatory nominees from the vice-chancellor and higher education experts. Since the college receives central funding, DU insisted that compliance with prescribed procedures was mandatory and ordered a fresh selection process.

The dispute fits a familiar pattern. St Stephen’s and DU have repeatedly clashed over admissions, minority rights and governance issues, including the tenure of the previous principal. The college maintains that its minority status guarantees substantial administrative autonomy.

A near-identical dispute surfaced at St Xavier’s College, Mumbai. Although Dr Gokarn became acting principal in May 2025 and was formally confirmed in October that year, approval from the University of Mumbai and state authorities was delayed because the selection panel allegedly lacked required government or university representation. The college approached the courts, invoking its constitutional protections as a minority institution.

Article 30(1) of the Constitution grants religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice — a protection that extends to appointments central to preserving institutional character.

Supreme Court rulings, notably T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), recognise that while the state may regulate qualifications, standards and procedural fairness, particularly in aided institutions, it cannot erode core administrative autonomy.

The tension lies precisely there. Universities argue that publicly funded and affiliated colleges must follow prescribed procedures to ensure transparency and merit. Minority institutions counter that rigid insistence on nominees and approvals can dilute their constitutional right to choose leaders aligned with their ethos.

Such disputes frequently end up before courts or bodies such as the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions.

Neither Prof. Elias nor Dr Gokarn lacks credentials. Elias, a computer scientist, comes from within one of DU’s flagship colleges. Gokarn, a microbiologist with more than three decades at St Xavier’s, has helped steer implementation of the National Education Policy 2020 and served in multiple academic leadership roles.

The similarities between the two cases nevertheless invite scrutiny.

Women remain underrepresented in top academic leadership despite forming a substantial portion of India’s teaching workforce. When the first women selected to lead two historic minority institutions encounter near-identical procedural hurdles, questions about institutional culture and gendered resistance become difficult to ignore.

Christian minority institutions have long been pioneers in women’s education. Yet the transition from educating women to placing women at the apex of institutional authority can still expose entrenched assumptions about leadership.

That said, regulatory objections cannot automatically be dismissed as sexism. Fair procedures matter. Transparent appointments protect institutions from arbitrariness and preserve public confidence.

The more important question is whether such standards are applied consistently — or become unusually stringent when women break long-standing barriers.

The controversies surrounding Elias and Gokarn are about more than administrative compliance. They sit at the intersection of minority autonomy, regulatory oversight and gender representation in higher education.

Both institutions must demonstrate adherence to fair processes. Equally, authorities must avoid procedural rigidity that undermines institutional continuity or appears selectively enforced.

How these disputes are resolved will say much about Indian academia’s ability to balance constitutional protections with regulatory accountability — and about whether its premier institutions are truly prepared for women’s leadership.

India’s finest colleges deserve leaders chosen on merit, not stalled by avoidable procedural conflict or unexamined bias.

Hasnain Naqvi is a former member of the history faculty at St Xavier’s College, Mumbai. More of his writing here