Allegations of Harassment and API Score Irregularities Against Professor Nafees Ansari; Clarification Awaited from the Administration
Report: Shozab Muneer
Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has witnessed a debate over the criteria for administrative appointments and the mechanism for addressing complaints following the appointment of its new Proctor, Professor Mohammad Nafees Ahmad Ansari. Earlier, reports had emerged that multiple FIRs had been registered against former Proctor Professor Naved Khan. Despite this, he was appointed to the important post. In the wake of the allegations now being raised against the new Proctor, questions are being asked about the extent to which the university administration examines relevant complaints and records before making appointments to key positions.
Allegations of harassment on communal grounds have been levelled against Professor Mohammad Nafees Ahmad Ansari. Reports have also emerged that a complaint was filed with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in this matter. However, it is necessary to obtain official information regarding the current status of the complaint, verification of the allegations and any action taken by the concerned authorities. These allegations cannot be treated as established facts without an investigation or verification of the relevant records.
According to Professor Rachna Kaushal, she filed a complaint against Professor Nafees Ansari on September 22, 2025, alleging harassment on communal grounds. She claims that an audio recording was also submitted along with the complaint, in which, according to her, Professor Nafees Ansari can allegedly be heard using objectionable language against Hindu teachers. Professor Rachna Kaushal has also alleged that Professor Nafees Ansari fraudulently exaggerated his Academic Performance Indicator (API) score. She maintains that, on this basis, she considers his appointment illegal. Independent verification of these claims and an examination of the relevant documents are necessary.
Professor Rachna Kaushal has further alleged that she was harassed and her seniority was adversely affected during Professor Mohammad Nafees Ahmad Ansari’s tenure as chairperson. According to her, she submitted several pieces of evidence to the concerned authorities in this regard, but her complaint has remained pending for more than a year, and no action has been taken by the Vice-Chancellor so far. The university administration’s position and the relevant records will be important in verifying these allegations and determining the current status of the complaint.
The key issue is what action the administration has taken so far despite the existence of the complaint. Has Professor Rachna Kaushal’s complaint and the evidence allegedly submitted by her been examined? If the complaint is still pending, what is the reason for the delay? Only the concerned authorities can answer these questions. The mere filing of an allegation against a person does not establish their guilt. Similarly, it would not be appropriate to dismiss a complaint as baseless without investigating it. Therefore, an impartial inquiry and a decision based on evidence are essential.
The post of Proctor at AMU is important for maintaining discipline on campus and building trust between students and teachers. It is essential that the decisions of the person holding this position are regarded as impartial and transparent. In view of the allegations that have surfaced following the appointment of the new Proctor, the administration is expected to clarify the status of the relevant complaints and the procedure followed for the appointment, so that the matter can be understood on the basis of facts rather than unverified claims and speculation.
The key questions before the Vice-Chancellor and the university administration are whether any action has been taken on Professor Rachna Kaushal’s complaint; if it is still pending, what has caused the delay; whether the allegation concerning the API score has been investigated; and whether the relevant complaints and records were examined before the Proctor’s appointment. A clear response from the administration on these questions would help provide a better understanding of the situation.
In view of the questions raised following the appointment of the new Proctor, it is essential for the university administration to ensure transparency in the investigation of complaints and the appointment process. If the complaints are found to have merit, action should be taken in accordance with the rules. At the same time, if the allegations are not substantiated, it is equally important to protect the concerned person’s reputation from unnecessary damage. This would help ensure both the rights of the complainant and fairness towards the person concerned.
In this connection, a phone call was made to PVC Professor Mohsin Khan to seek his comments, but the call was not answered. No response had been received from him by the time the report was written. In these circumstances, questions regarding the current status of the complaint, any action that may have been taken and the review of relevant records before the appointment remain unanswered. Only an official statement from the university administration and verification of the relevant documents can clarify the situation.