Kerala High Court Reserves Judgment On Appeal By Sanskrit University Against Order Allowing Suspended Students to Write Examinations

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishnan S. heard both the appellants and the respondents and reserved the matter for judgment.

The Single Judge, by an order dated October 30, had directed the University to accept the examination fees and permit the students to appear for the ensuing examinations, making it clear that their participation would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition and would not create any right or equity in their favour.

The appellant contended that the interim order effectively grants the substantive relief sought in the writ petition without adjudicating the legality of the suspension order.

The dispute originated from a protest conducted on the University campus on August 13, 2026, during a Syndicate meeting.

According to the appeal, the students allegedly staged a mock cremation of the Vice-Chancellor. It is further alleged that the Vice-Chancellor was physically manhandled and that attempts were made to damage her vehicle when she left the office after the meeting.

Following the incident, an FIR was registered on August 13, 2026, at Kalady Police Station. A subsequent complaint submitted by the Vice-Chancellor resulted in another FIR.

On September 1, 2026, the University placed the students under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. An Enquiry Committee was also constituted to examine the allegations.

It is stated that the committee conducted hearings on September 29 and 30, 2026, and submitted its report. According to the appeal, the report recommended action against the students but required certain procedural defects to be rectified before it could be placed before the Syndicate for approval.

The students approached the High Court by a writ petition, aggrieved by the suspension and their consequent exclusion from the campus. It was submitted in the writ petition that the prolonged suspension, without concluding the disciplinary proceedings, was causing serious prejudice to their academic interests and preventing them from attending classes. They also contended that they were staging a protest over the lack of amenities, and denied holding any mock funeral.

While the writ petition was pending, the students filed an interlocutory application seeking permission to participate in the examinations scheduled to commence on November 4, 2026.

This application was allowed, by the order presently challenged in the appeal.