Economist Ajit Ranade’s ouster sparks debate over governance, academic integrity
A letter regarding the same was issued by GIPE chancellor Bibek Debroy which prompted an outcry from various sectors, including academics, politicians, and public intellectuals
The removal of economist Ajit Ranade, 63, from the post of vice-chancellor of Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics (GIPE) has ignited a storm of controversy, raising questions about the governance of educational institutions.
Ranade, a PhD holder from Brown University, with degrees from premier Indian institutes like IIM Ahmedabad and IIT Bombay, who held leadership roles in the corporate field was removed as vice-chancellor on September 14 following a fact-finding committee (FFC) report that probed complaints of irregularities in the appointment and pointed out that his qualifications “did not meet the norms set forth by the University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines”.
A letter regarding the same was issued by GIPE chancellor Bibek Debroy which prompted an outcry from various sectors, including academics, politicians, and public intellectuals. Many have criticised the decision, expressing concerns about its impact on the institution’s reputation and autonomy.
According to Bhushan Patwardhan, former vice-chairman at UGC and ex-chairman of the NAAC Executive Committee, the UGC regulations must change in tune with modern times.
“New edge universities need high calibre professionals and visionaries to lead and bring innovations. Mere paper qualifications should not suffice and qualitative evaluation is necessary for such high-level positions,” said Patwardhan.
Terming Ranade’s removal as an “unfortunate incidence”, Patwardhan said, “A person of eminence should suffice the eligibility. Let the search committee decide who should be this person. The discretion should be given to search committees without any external interference.”
While allegations against Ranade were numerous, Debroy’s decision citing the FFC report focused solely on his lack of the required ten years of academic experience—a criterion that some believe was strategically used to oust the economist.
Questions over appointment procedure
The issue of Ranade’s removal is not the first time GIPE has faced leadership turmoil. Over the past two decades, the institute, once regarded as a centre of academic excellence, has seen multiple controversies surrounding the appointment of its V-Cs. For nearly ten years, the institute had no permanent V-C, with interim charges being handed to faculty members.
The constant leadership crises have severely affected the institution’s morale and the academic environment, leading to delays in promotions, research output, and recruitment processes.
Interestingly, the main complainant, Murli Krishna, who raised the issue of Ranade’s eligibility, was himself suspended from GIPE in 2018 over allegations of misconduct, while Rande assumed charge in February 2022 for a period of five years.
Krishna said, “The then chancellor Rajiv Kumar who was also the vice-chairman of Niti Ayog appointed Ranade as the V-C. In the search-cum-selection committee there was one member nominated by the UGC, one person nominated by the board of management of GIPE and the third member in the committee was nominated by the chancellor. There were at least 45 applications including those who fulfilled the criteria of 10 years of teaching experience. Moreover, the committee recommended four names for the V-C’s post, the other three had good experience in teaching, but among them, Ranade was appointed for the said post.”
“Why did the chancellor not oppose the appointment then? It is a fact that the committee has committed irregularities in appointment procedure,” he said.
Speaking about his dismissal from the institute Krishna said, “ In 2012, I along with four other colleagues submitted a complaint to the higher officials about mismanagement in the institute along with all the proofs. But instead of acting on that, we got dismissed in 2013. We filed a petition against the same in the Bombay high court, and the court stayed the institute’s decision and directed a departmental inquiry into the matter. Later in 2017, three of my colleagues got dismissed and one had already quit the job. After one year, I also was dismissed in 2018 for the second time.”
“The other three people had filled a petition in Bombay high court and the case is still going on, while I choose not to file a petition,” he said.
When contacted Debroy, he said,” I have nothing to say in the matter.”
Financial irregularities & internal dissent
Two faculty members, speaking on anonymity, have pointed to several factors that contributed to the friction between Ranade and the internal staff. They alleged that while Ranade pursued a vision of transforming GIPE into a more “corporate-like institution”, his approach did not align with the ethos of a public, autonomous institute. His decision to hike fees, while introducing new “high-paying” faculty positions, alienated both students and long-serving faculty members.
“The institute hiked fee by 7% per cent for different courses,“ claimed an official from GIPE requesting anonymity.
Further compounding the issue was Ranade’s controversial transfer of ₹1.50 crore to the Servants of India Society (SIS), GIPE’s parent body, for extending the lease of land in Nagpur. According to the UGC guidelines, such transfers of funds are prohibited, and this alleged misuse of funds has led to legal complications.
Pravin Raut, a member of SIS, said, “In Nagpur, SIS is holding a land of 27,000 sqft since 1911. The lease of the land will expire in 2030 and to renew it, the SIS secretary has demanded over ₹1 crore from GIPE in 2022. The institute transferred ₹1.50 crore in October 2023 while the actual expenditure was ₹1.20 crore. The amount shown in expenditure was more and also, even as SIS is a parent body of GIPE, the funds cannot be transferred as per law.”
Divided campus
Ranade’s tenure saw GIPE divided into two camps — those who supported his vision, and others who viewed his policies as detrimental to the core mission of the institution. While he pushed for development projects and new courses, these were sometimes met with resistance from faculty members who believed that V-C’s approach was too “commercially driven” for a public research institution.
“The institute has started two courses and so the number of students which earlier was around 1,000, has increased to 1,500 in the last two years. A new hostel has been set up by the institute, and new faculty has been appointed for the V-C office,” claimed an official from GIPE requesting anonymity.
While another faculty member noted, “You cannot run a public institution like GIPE as though it’s a corporate entity. These institutes are not meant to generate profit but to deliver 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, has argued in his petition that the termination was illegal, and failed to consider relevant facts. The High Court has put on hold the economist’s termination till September 23 when the matter has been posted for hearing.
In his petition, Ranade has contended that his dismissal violates his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Ranade declined to comment, citing that the matter is sub-judiced.
Future of GIPE
The outcome of the case will not only determine Ranade’s status as V-C but also set a precedent for how public educational institutions are governed in India. The controversy has already tarnished the reputation of GIPE, and many faculty members are calling for a swift resolution that puts the interests of students and the institute first especially when the annual convocation is less than two weeks away.
Naresh Bodkhe, professor at GIPE, said, “The faculty and administration may come and go, but the institution remains. Everyone involved in this issue needs to prioritise the future of the students and the institute’s standing in the academic community.”
Ranade’s future may hang in the balance, but the larger question remains — can GIPE recover from yet another leadership crisis, or is this merely a symptom of deeper systemic issues in the governance of India’s public universities.
