Education Ministry Directed to Decide on Complaint Within Three Months
Report: S. Muneer
Aligarh: The Delhi High Court has passed an important order in the alleged fake cash voucher case involving Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), directing the Ministry of Education to consider and decide a representation submitted by the complainant within three months in accordance with the applicable rules and law.
The matter relates to alleged fake cash vouchers and missing financial records from the office of the Controller at Aligarh Muslim University. In the case, allegations of forgery and preparation of fake cash vouchers were levelled against former AMU employee Shabih Ahmed.
The complainant alleged that instead of taking action, the AMU administration protected the accused employee and closed the matter without conducting an effective inquiry.
The complainant approached the Delhi High Court through advocate Kaif Hasan, stating that despite repeated complaints being submitted before AMU authorities, no effective action had been taken. It was also alleged that, in response to an RTI application, the concerned financial register was described as “misplaced and not traceable.”
The complainant had also submitted a representation to the Ministry of Education on March 24, 2026, seeking an independent investigation and audit into the allegations. According to the petition, no decision was taken on the representation for a considerable period. The complainant subsequently approached the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the Ministry to act on the representation.
Jurisdictional Objection Raised
During the hearing, the issue of territorial jurisdiction was raised as the case primarily concerned AMU in Aligarh.
The petition was opposed on the ground that the alleged preparation of fake vouchers, maintenance of financial records and the alleged inaction by AMU authorities all occurred in Aligarh. Therefore, it was argued that the appropriate court to hear the matter would be the Allahabad High Court, and not the Delhi High Court.
On behalf of the complainant, advocate Kaif Hasan argued that the Ministry of Education is located in New Delhi and that the representation had been submitted to the ministry there. Therefore, the alleged failure to act on the representation gave rise to a part of the cause of action in Delhi, conferring jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court.
Delhi High Court Rejects Jurisdictional Objection
After hearing arguments from both sides, a bench headed by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma reserved its order.
In its order dated August 25, 2026, the Delhi High Court did not accept the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. The court observed that the Ministry of Education is situated in New Delhi and that the relevant representation was submitted to the authority in Delhi. Therefore, with regard to the limited relief sought in the petition, a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.
The court accordingly held that the Delhi High Court was not deprived of jurisdiction to hear the petition.
Ministry Directed to Decide Within Three Months
However, the High Court did not express any opinion on the allegations of fraud, forgery, fabrication or disappearance of financial records.
The bench directed the Ministry of Education to consider and decide the representation submitted by the complainant on March 24, 2026, within three months, in accordance with the applicable rules and law.
The ministry has also been directed to examine, within the scope of its authority and jurisdiction, whether any action is required in connection with the allegations raised in the complaint. The decision is also to be communicated to the complainant.
Following the court’s order, the matter now rests with the Ministry of Education. The ministry will have to examine the allegations and the representation in accordance with the law and take a decision within the stipulated three-month period.
The key question now is whether the Ministry of Education will order or recommend any independent investigation or audit into the allegations, or take any other appropriate action based on its findings.