Political Activities Like Dharna, Hunger Strikes & Satyagraha Have No Place In Constitutional Democracy: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has observed that political activities like dharna, hunger strikes and practices like Sathyagraha have no place in a constitutional democracy, particularly in academic institutions, reiterating a 2017 precedent.

The Court observed that students indulging in such activities in an educational institution are liable to be expelled or rusticated.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. made the observations while setting aside an interim order passed by a Single Judge allowing 16 suspended students of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, to appear for the ensuing semester examinations scheduled to commence on November 4.

The Bench relied on its 2017 decision in Dr. Antony Thomas v. V.M. Muhammed Rafique, wherein a Division Bench had held that educational institutions are meant for imparting education and not politics.

"In Dr. Antony Thomas v. V.M. Muhammed Rafique and others [2017 (5) KHC 215], a Division Bench of this Court observed that political activities like dharna, hunger strikes and other practices like Sathyagrah have no place in a constitutional democracy, much less in academic institutions. Anyone indulging in the said activities in an educational institution would make himself liable to be expelled and/or rusticated. Educational Institutions are meant for imparting education and not politics. By their political ambition the political parties cannot hold to ransom the educational institution or the right of the civilized students to receive education."

The Bench also quoted the 2017 verdict's portions referring to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, in which he advocated adherence to constitutional methods for achieving social and economic objectives and described civil disobedience, non-cooperation and Satyagraha as the "Grammar of Anarchy" when constitutional avenues are available.

The observations came in a writ appeal filed by the University, its Syndicate and Vice-Chancellor challenging the Single Judge's interim order dated October 30, which had directed the University to accept examination fees from the suspended students and permit them to write the examinations, subject to the final outcome of their writ petition.

The 16 students had approached the High Court challenging their suspension by the University through an order dated September 1, 2026, pending an enquiry into incidents allegedly occurring on the campus on August 13. T 

The University had constituted an enquiry committee to examine the incidents and had also restricted the suspended students' entry into the campus, except on dates fixed for attending the enquiry proceedings.

The students had contended that their prolonged suspension was illegal and prevented them from attending classes, causing serious academic loss. They argued that any shortage of attendance arising from their suspension should not deprive them of the opportunity to appear for the examinations.

The University, however, argued that the students did not satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, including minimum attendance and successful completion of internal examinations. It also contended that the students had not submitted applications for condonation of attendance shortage in accordance with the applicable University regulations.

The Division Bench found that the writ petition filed by the students lacked pleadings and supporting materials establishing their eligibility to appear for the examinations. It noted that none of the students had submitted the requisite applications for condonation of attendance shortage, along with supporting documents and recommendations from the respective Heads of Departments or Directors of Centres.

The Court held that the Single Judge's interim order effectively granted the principal relief sought in the writ petition, without examining whether the students satisfied the applicable eligibility conditions.

It observed that courts cannot issue directions requiring universities or other authorities to act contrary to statutory provisions or regulations.

The Bench also referred to an earlier Division Bench ruling in Principal, IES College of Engineering v. Anas P.M., which had held that attendance shortage resulting from a suspension is a consequence that students would necessarily have to suffer.