New Delhi: The Mahatma Gandhi Central University (MGCU) has implemented a revised policy requiring faculty members to submit complaints in affidavit format on stamp paper, along with a copy of identity proof.
On Thursday, the central university in Bihar’s Motihari issued two orders outlining its revised complaint filing policy. While the first details the prerequisites for submitting a complaint, the other mandates that employees must obtain prior approval from the competent authority before contacting any external office, body, or agency regarding any matter.
This move has sparked criticism from faculty, who argue that it undermines their right to dissent and have described the new norms as “dictatorial”.
In contrast, a senior MGCU official asserted that the step was taken so that genuine complaints get preference over preposterous ones.
Also Read: How Rajasthan’s school mergers threaten the future of 1st-generation learners, especially girls
What new orders say
According to the first order, a copy of which is with ThePrint, complaints must include the complainant’s full name, address, and valid contact details, along with a copy of identity proof (preferably with address proof).
“Complaints should be submitted on non-judicial stamp paper in affidavit format, duly signed and notarized, along with all relevant supporting documentary evidence,” the notice reads. “Anonymous or pseudonymous complaints will not be entertained under any circumstances.”
The second order, seen by ThePrint, mandates that all requests, letters, emails, complaints, and grievances be routed through the proper channel to the Officer on Special Duty (Administration). It states that employees must first address these to their immediate reporting authority, who will forward them with comments. The OSD will then send them to the competent authority.
It also emphasizes that all official communication must be “courteous and well-mannered”, and employees must obtain prior approval from the competent authority before contacting any external office, body, or agency.
Faculty calls it curb on dissent
Several faculty members have criticised the orders as “dictatorial guidelines” that are unacceptable in a democratic institution.
A senior faculty member expressed concern that the new prerequisites for filing complaints would discourage individuals from coming forward. “There have been instances when faculty members had to file complaints anonymously out of fear of punitive action. How can anyone provide ID or address proof when they are already facing an issue? It’s absolutely unacceptable,” the faculty member told ThePrint.
Another faculty member emphasised that a university named after Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation, should avoid such repressive and intimidating tactics. “This dictatorial attitude is an attack on the institution’s autonomy and the very ideology of Gandhi,” the faculty member said.
Responding to an email query by ThePrint, OSD (Administration) Sachchidanand Singh said that the order mentions “prefer” and that the university will give preference to such complaints having the identity details of complainants and in the form of affidavit, which means the complaint is not preposterous.
“The University receives several anonymous complaints on a regular basis and many of them have been found to be baseless. Therefore, it wants those who are making genuine complaints to be preferred over the preposterous complaints. The identity proof is also required to have an interface with the complainant in a speedy manner. Even the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) and PMO Grievance Portal (PMOPGP) also require the identity proof of the complainant,” he said.
The objective of these directives, he said, is to “streamline communication, enhance accountability, and to ensure a structured and transparent grievance redressal process”. “A teacher of the University may write to the OSD (Administration) through proper channels regarding any matter,” he added.
Faculty members argue that the vice-chancellor is ultimately responsible for addressing employee grievances, and by prohibiting direct contact with that office, the university is violating their rights.
“Why are we being prevented from directly contacting the vice-chancellor? And what is the purpose of requiring permission from the competent authority before reaching out to any external office, body, or agency on any matter? This is a complete violation of our freedom of speech,” said another faculty member.
Faculty members point out that there have been instances in the past when colleagues have reached out to the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Ministry of Education over campus issues. “As a central university, the UGC and the ministry are accountable to the faculty here. Why are we being prevented from contacting them directly?” asked one of the professors quoted above.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: NITI Aayog says lack of English proficiency key barrier to state university graduates getting jobs