Will Hold Special Exams For Suspended Students If They Succeed In High Court, Kalady Sanskrit University Tells Supreme Court

Senior Advocate PV Dinesh, for the petitioners, submitted that they have been under suspension for 64 days without any enquiry, making the suspension itself a punishment. "The University is dragging the matter, creating the situation of impossibility," he submitted.

Advocate PS Sudheer, the counsel for the University, submitted that the petitioners do not meet the minimum attendance criteria for writing exams.

Justice Narasimha then observed, "University have its own discipline."

Dinesh said that the students were holding a mock funeral of the defunct light and mic systems to highlight the lack of amenities, and the University was "so touchy about it". 

The University's counsel informed the Court that the students' petition is listed before the single bench on November 17. If the students succeed, a special exam will be held for them, he submitted.

In this backdrop, the Court stated that it was declining interference.

"We are not inclined to interfere; the single judge is requested to take up and dispose of the matter expeditiously. We record the statement of the university that in the event favourable orders are passed, the university will hold special exams so that students' interests are not harmed," the bench noted in the order.

The students, belonging to the Students Federation of India (SFI), had sought restoration of the interim relief granted by a Single Judge on October 30, which had directed the University to accept their examination fees and permit them to write the examinations, subject to the final outcome of their pending writ petition challenging their suspension.

They have also sought permission to appear provisionally for the remaining examination papers and conduct of special examinations for papers they may have missed before the Supreme Court's order.

Background

The students were suspended on September 1, 2026, pending an enquiry into incidents allegedly involving a protest on the University campus on August 13, during a Syndicate meeting. It was alleged that the students staged a mock cremation of the Vice-Chancellor and physically manhandled her, besides attempting to damage her vehicle. The students, however, maintained that they were holding a mock funeral of stage lights which were not functioning.

Following the incident, FIRs were registered and the University constituted an enquiry committee pursuant to a Syndicate decision taken on August 22. The suspended students were also barred from entering the campus, except on certain dates for attending enquiry proceedings. Although the committee conducted hearings on September 29 and 30 and subsequently submitted its report, the report was not placed before the Syndicate.

The students approached the Kerala High Court on October 12 contending that the suspension had prevented them from attending classes and caused academic prejudice, including potential shortfall in attendance. As the semester examinations approached, they sought interim permission to appear for the examinations, arguing that any attendance shortage attributable to the University's suspension could not be used to deny them an academic opportunity.

The Single Judge allowed their application on October 30, permitting them to appear for the examinations subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.

The University challenged the interim order before a Division Bench arguing that the students did not satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, including minimum attendance and successful completion of internal examinations, and had not completed the examination registration process within the stipulated deadline.

On November 3, the Division Bench allowed the University's appeal and set aside the interim order. The Court held that there was a "total lack of pleadings" in the writ petition regarding the entitlement of students other than PhD scholars to appear for the examinations in terms of the applicable regulations. It observed that the interim order virtually granted the main relief sought in the writ petition and could not be sustained in the absence of a strong prima facie case.

The Division Bench also noted that the students had not submitted the requisite applications for condonation of attendance shortage, supported by documents and recommendations from their respective Heads of Departments or Directors of Centres. It relied on an earlier Division Bench ruling in Principal, IES College of Engineering v. Anas P.M., which held that attendance shortage resulting from suspension was a consequence students would necessarily have to suffer.

The High Court reiterated its 2017 ruling in Dr. Antony Thomas v. V.M. Muhammed Rafique, stating that political activities such as dharnas, hunger strikes and Satyagraha have no place in educational institutions and students indulging in such activities could be liable for expulsion or rustication. The Division Bench also referred to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's observations in the Constituent Assembly on the use of constitutional methods, describing civil disobedience, non-cooperation and Satyagraha as the "Grammar of Anarchy" when constitutional avenues are available.

The students have approached the Supreme Court contending that the Division Bench failed to consider that any attendance shortfall was directly attributable to the University's suspension order, which prevented them from attending classes. They further argue that the objections concerning attendance and internal assessment were raised for the first time in the writ appeal, depriving them of an opportunity to respond before the Single Judge.

The petitioners contend that permitting them to write examinations provisionally was not equivalent to granting the final relief of quashing their suspension. They contend that the Division bench decision, delivered on the eve of the examinations, effectively foreclosed their academic opportunity at the interlocutory stage, since the examinations would conclude before their writ petition could be finally adjudicated.

According to the students, the first FIR registered suo motu by the Kalady Police in connection with the August 13 incident did not contain allegations of a mock cremation or physical assault on the Vice-Chancellor, while a subsequent FIR registered on August 16, following the Vice-Chancellor's complaint to the State Police Chief, introduced these allegations and invoked non-bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The plea has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Subhash Chandran.