Recent procedural objections that have paralysed executive transitions at two of India’s most venerated higher education institutions put the spotlight on how bureaucratic oversight has prevented women from taking over top leadership roles.In May, the Supreme Council of St Stephen’s College announced that Susan Elias, an eminent computer scientist, had been selected as its 14th principal. Elias was slated to become the first woman principal in the institution’s 145-year history.Yet, within days, the Delhi University ordered a freeze on her appointment, saying it was not in compliance with the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018.The Delhi University argued that because St Stephen’s is fully funded by the Centre, its selection panel should have included university-nominated higher education experts and a nominee of the Vice-Chancellor.This standoff is a reminder of the gridlock last year at St Xavier’s College, Mumbai. In October, the 156-year-old Jesuit institution appointed Karuna Gokarn, a distinguished microbiologist with over three decades of academic service, as its first female principal.Like with the St Stephen’s case in Delhi, approval for Gokarn’s appointment was withheld by Maharashtra’s Joint Director of Education and the University of Mumbai. In response, St Xavier’s moved the Bombay High Court a few months later, asserting that protected minority institutions possess an unassailable right to choose their own institutional heads.In both instances, the bone of contention is identical: the colleges allegedly failed to invite Vice-Chancellor and government nominees to sit on their selection interview panels.Minority educational institutions have administrative rights as outlined in Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution that grants religious and linguistic minorities the fundamental right to “establish and administer educational institutions of their choice”. This includes the autonomy to select qualified principals, directors, and teaching staff to preserve the distinct character of the institution.Minority administrations do not have to strictly adhere to normal seniority-based rules. Decades of jurisprudence have affirmed that an indispensable aspect of this right is the autonomy to choose a principal who embodies the vision and character of the founding community.However, state funding has created ambiguity. While the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act protects freedoms for such institutions, the courts have generally held that the state can impose reasonable regulations regarding minimum qualifications and eligibility criteria to ensure academic excellence.When an educational institution receives public funds, the state often attempts to intensify its regulatory grip. The stand-offs at St Stephen’s and St Xavier’s embody an escalation of this tendency, as state authorities assert that financial dependence demands absolute surrender to procedural uniformity.Yet there is a more uncomfortable cultural reality: these deadlocks deprive young students of having accomplished female authority figures as role models.When the state or its affiliating universities choose to engage in protracted battles over the composition of selection panels rather than facilitating the ascension of qualified women, they signal that maintaining bureaucratic dominance is more important than promoting diverse leadership.If Indian academia is to evolve beyond its patriarchal foundations, the state and university administrations must abandon adversarial governance and work towards constitutional autonomy and gender equity.Hasnain Naqvi taught history at St Xavier’s College, Mumbai.