Bharat Mata Portrait Row: Kerala High Court Stays Memo Of Charges Issued By Kerala University VC Against Former Registrar

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan issued the interim order in a writ petition filed by the former Registrar of Kerala University challenging the authority of the Vice Chancellor to issue the memo of charges.

It was submitted that the Vice-Chancellor invoked Section 10(13) of the Kerala University Act, 1974. According to the section, if the Vice-Chancellor is satisfied than an emergency has arisen requiring him to take immediate action, when the Syndicate or the Academic Council is not in session, he can invoke the section 10(13) and take action which should be later reported to the Syndicate or the Academic council during its next session.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after issuing the memo of charges by the Vice-Chancellor, the next syndicate meeting was held on 24.12.2025 but the report as stipulated under the Section 10(13) was not placed before the Syndicate.

“I am of the prima facie opinion that Ext.P12 (memo of charges) is issued by the Vice Chancellor without any authority. The 3rd respondent will explain why Section 10(13) of Act 1974 is invoked to issue a Memo of Charges to the petitioner treating it as an emergency situation,” the Court noted.

It thus stayed the further proceedings based on the memo of charges and directed the Vice-Chancellor to file a counter affidavit.

Background

The Registrar was suspended by the Vice Chancellor in July 2025 for cancelling a seminar to be attended by the Governor, amid clashes between different Students' Unions over display of 'Bharat Mata' portrait with a saffron flag, purportedly giving the impression of a Hindu goddess.

The Vice Chancellor had held the Registrar responsible for alleged procedural irregularities and mismanagement, leading to unrest on campus.

A syndicate meeting was convened following his suspension, in which he was reinstated as the Registrar. Despite the formal revocation, the Vice Chancellor issued fresh directions asserting that the Registrar remained in suspension.

The Registrar approached the High Court challenging his continued suspension despite a formal revocation of the same by the University Syndicate. He also sought to quash several orders issued by the Vice Chancellor that prevented him from rejoining duty. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the Vice Chancellor to constitute a syndicate meeting through Registrar-in-Charge to decide whether the suspension should continue.

Pursuant to this direction Syndicate meeting was convened on 24 December, 2025. The present petition is filed challenging the authority of the Vice Chancellor to issue the memo charges and the failure of the Vice -Chancellor to submit the memo of Charges before the Syndicate.

Case Title: Prof. Dr. K S Anil Kumar v State of Kerala and Ors.

Case No: WP(C) 737/ 2026

Counsel for Petitioner: P Ramakrishnan, Preethi Ramakrishnan, Pratap Abraham Varghese, Manojkumar G, Ashok Menon

Counsel for Respondents: Thomas Abraham (SC -University of Kerala)