Law University Cannot Force Repeater Students To Appear For New Syllabus Not Taught To Them: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a circular issued by the state law university which required the repeater students to appear for the newly introduced subjects instead of the earlier subjects they had been taught [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 220].

The single judge bench of Justice Ashok S. Kinagi struck down the circular issued by Karnataka State Law University [Respondent No.1], mandating the repeating students to appear for new subjects such as 'Labour and Industrial Law-I' and 'Labour and Industrial Law-II' instead of 'Labour Law-I' and 'Labour Law-II'.

Noting that the University cannot force students to appear in exams for subjects they were not taught, the court observed,

“…The respondent University cannot direct the students to appear for the subject, which were not taught to them. As the college has taught the petitioners subjects Labour Law-I and Labour Law-II, the action of the respondents in directing the petitioners to appear for the Labour and Industrial Law-I and Labour and Industrial Law-II is arbitrary…”.

The plea was preferred by the law students from B.M.S College of Law, Bengaluru [Respondent No.3], who are enrolled in the 3-year LL. B Course with subjects such as Labour Law-I and Labour Law-II.

In the regular academic year, the petitioners failed in the aforesaid subjects and opted to appear for the supplementary exams. However, the Registrar (Evaluation) [Respondent No.2] of the State University issued a circular on April 8, 2026, directing that a revised syllabus be implemented instead of the previous labour law subjects. Incidentally, the repeating students were also asked to prepare for their exams as per the newly revised syllabus.

Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that their college had only taught them Labour Law-I and Labour Law-II, and that forcing the failed students to appear for entirely new syllabus would be fundamentally unfair and arbitrary. Reliance was placed on Sachin R. & Another v. The Karnataka State Law University & Others (W.P. No. 34457/2024).

After hearing the parties, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the circular stating,

“...the respondents are directed to conduct examination for the petitioners, who have appeared for Labour Law-I and Labour Law-II and not to insist on the examination to be conducted with regard to the Labour and Industrial Law-I and Labour and Industrial Law-II.”

Appearance: Sri S. Sreevatsa, Senior Counsel for Sri Shashanka J. Sreedhara, Advocate for Petitioners; Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2.

Case Title: Ananda Karegoñeppara & Others v. The Karnataka State Law University & Others

Case No.: W.P. No. 17879 of 2026

Click Here To Read/ Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 220

Click Here To Read/Download Order