Bharat Mata Portrait Row: High Court Summons Kerala University VC In Contempt Plea For Defying Syndicate's Decision Reinstating Registrar

The Registrar was suspended by the VC 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.

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

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan observed that High Court's earlier direction clearly mandate that decisions taken by the Syndicate would necessarily bind the VC, who would be required to act in accordance with those decisions, subject to statutory powers. Yet, the VC prima facie failed to comply.

“The direction to the VC in the judgment is that the decision taken by the syndicate will necessarily be binding on the Vice Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor will have to be .. subject to the powers of the Statute. It is an admitted fact that the Syndicate decided to revoke the suspension and reinstate the Registrar,” Court said.

The VC contended that the alleged violation pertained only to the non-convening of the Syndicate meeting, and that the meeting had since been convened. His counsel sought time to file an objection affidavit.

However, the Court declined the request, noting that the contempt case has been pending since October, 2025, and no affidavit had been filed thus far.

The VC's counsel then submitted that the VC was not agreeable to implementing the Syndicate's decision, claiming it was in violation of the Kerala University Act. On the other hand, counsel for Dr. Anilkumar informed the Court that the matter had been placed before the Chancellor and that a decision from the Chancellor was awaited.

The Court however observed that its judgment can't be kept on hold by either the VC or the Chancellor.

A perusal of the Syndicate minutes, the Court further noted, revealed that the VC had objected to the Syndicate's decision itself. The Court remarked that such conduct prima facie indicated contempt of court.

“I am of the prima facie opinion that the judgment of the High Court cannot be in hold by either the Vice Chancellor or the Chancellor…Immediate action needs to be taken as per the direction of the Court admittedly in the Annexure A6. A perusal of the minutes of the Syndicate would show that the Vice Chancellor is objecting to the decision of the Syndicate itself. That itself shows he is committing contempt.” Court stated

The Court thus ordered the personal Appearance of the Vice-Chancellor on March 11.

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.

On failure of the Vice-Chancellor to convene the meeting, the syndicate members, approached the High Court seeking convening of the syndicate meeting. This petition was disposed of since it was informed the meeting was scheduled on November 1, 2025.

The syndicate meeting on November 1, revoked the suspension, but the Vice-Chancellor has placed the matter before the Chancellor for his concurrence, without complying with the decision of the Syndicate.

Case Title: Prof. Dr. K S Anilkumar v Dr. Mohan Kunnummal

Case No: Con.Case(c) 2424/ 2025

Counsel for Petitioner: Elvin Peter P J (Sr.), K R Ganesh, Adarsh Babu CS, Ahsana E, Ashik J Varghese

Counsel for Respondent: Girija K Gopal