trendingNow,recommendedStories,recommendedStoriesMobileenglish2022384

For IIPM and Arindam Chaudhuri, the chickens come home to roost

The Delhi High Court’s judgement brings the “dare to dream beyond the IIMs” juggernaut to a grinding halt

For IIPM and Arindam Chaudhuri, the chickens come home to roost

Arindam Chaudhuri had been pushing his luck rather too far. The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) requires no introduction, nor does its litany of questionable practices over the years. 

Chaudhuri's luck ran out with Friday's Delhi High Court judgement, which effectively orders him to pack up his business. IIPM had no right to ply its management education business, the court ruled, since it was neither a "university", nor a "deemed university" in the eyes of law. That apart, the institute was directed to display a conspicuous note of apology to everyone who visited its website, besides of course, displaying the judgement. 

More shocking was the apparent ease and nonchalance with which he managed to stifle all criticism and questioning of his stories. Rashmi Bansal, editor of Just Another Magazine and Maheshwar Peri, editor of Careers 360 magazine, were silenced by SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suits in 2005 and 2009 respectively. And in 2011, IIPM dragged Caravan magazine to court in a Rs 500 million lawsuit because it published a chapter from a book which showed in vivid detail how Chaudhuri had duped thousands of students.

Then, in February 2013, Chaudhuri got a Gwalior court to issue an order directing the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) to block 78 URLs, 73 of which, according to him, were malicious and defamatory. One of these was to a July 2012 University Grants Commission (UGC) notice declaring that IIPM was not a "university" according to Section 2(f) of the UGC Act. 

The PIL had called for IIPM to be prohibited from claiming its eligibility to offer MBA and BBA degrees and diplomas, as well as publicising its link to the International Management Institute (IMI), Belgium, because that was just a means to lull people into believing that they were being imparted a "global" education which would make the world their oyster. 

In December 2013, IIPM had solemnly affirmed before the court that it would not, in any way, advertise the products it was peddling, but the details on its website and the admission prospectus for 2014 showed its disregard even for sworn oaths before a court of law. 

Both the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the UGC had declared that IIPM did not fulfil the mandatory requirements for imparting management education or awarding professional qualifications, either degrees or diplomas. While upholding these declarations, the court forbade the institution from using "Management School", "Business School", "B-school" to describe itself on any item or platform, which were critical components of Chaudhuri's publicity campaign. 

The judgement held that the 'Belgian connection' was a total hoax. IIPM had contended that though it did not have any collaboration with IMI, the latter awarded degrees to IIPM-ites in recognition of the superlative and avant garde education at all its campuses dotting metros, small cities as well as mofussil towns. 

The reality, as reflected in the court's words - "cleverly concealing... that IMI, Belgium is nothing but an alter ego or another face of IIPM" - is that it was only a front company which Chaudhuri was running by proxy, and misleading all those craving for a global education tag. 

When the URLs were blocked, Chaudhuri had gloated on social media. He had launched into a tirade against UGC and AICTE, accusing them of acting at the behest of "petty competitors with dirty past records of filth and cheating". The wheel seems to have come full circle. The court has ordered him to conspicuously display its judgement on its website so that no more aspirants mistakenly fall victim to his institute. He has only a week to comply, in both letter and spirit. 

The best part of the judgement is perhaps Paragraph 16, because it grants freedom to any of Chaudhuri's victims (and there have been lakhs of them) to hold him to account and pay for his misdeeds. 

This is one chicken Chaudhuri should have counted before IIPM imploded with the same bang with which it had heralded its arrival.

Saurav teaches Media Law & Jurisprudence in Mumbai and Pune. Follow him on twitter @SauravDatta29.

LIVE COVERAGE

TRENDING NEWS TOPICS
More