Sixteen students of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, have approached the Supreme Court challenging a Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment that set aside an interim order permitting them to appear for semester examinations commencing on November 4.

The students, belonging to the Students Federation of India (SFI), have sought an interim direction restoring the order passed by a Single Judge on October 30, which had permitted 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, with a direction to conduct special examinations for papers they may have missed before the Supreme Court's order.

The students contend that the High Court's decision, delivered on the eve of the examinations, would result in the irretrievable loss of an academic semester.

Students suspended following campus protest

The 16 petitioners, pursuing MSW, MFA, MA, Four-Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUGP) and PhD courses, were suspended by the University on September 1, 2026, pending an enquiry into incidents allegedly involving a student protest on the campus on August 13.

The University had 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 specified dates for attending enquiry proceedings.

The students subsequently approached the Kerala High Court on October 12, challenging the prolonged suspension and seeking, among other reliefs, provisional acceptance of their examination applications.

As the examinations approached and the disciplinary enquiry remained inconclusive, they moved an interim application.

On October 30, the Single Judge permitted the students to appear for the examinations commencing November 4, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. The order clarified that their appearance would not create any right or equity in their favour.

The University challenged this interim order before the Division Bench.

High Court sets aside interim relief

The University argued before the Division Bench that the students did not possess the requisite minimum attendance and had not successfully passed the prescribed internal examinations. It also contended that the students had not completed the examination registration process within the stipulated deadline.

The University further argued that the Single Judge had granted, at the interim stage, substantially the same relief sought in the writ petition, without adequate pleadings or materials establishing the students' eligibility to appear for the examinations.

Accepting the University's contentions, the Division Bench set aside the interim order on November 3.

The High Court held that there was a "total lack of pleadings" regarding the students' entitlement to appear for the examinations in terms of the applicable regulations on minimum attendance and internal assessment.

Students allege attendance shortfall caused by suspension

In their Supreme Court petition, the students contend that the High Court failed to appreciate that any shortfall in attendance was a direct consequence of the University's own suspension order, which prevented them from attending classes.

They argue that the University cannot be permitted to take advantage of a situation created by its own action.

The petition further states that the objection regarding attendance and internal assessment was raised for the first time in the writ appeal, leaving the students without an opportunity to respond to the University's defence before the Single Judge.

The petitioners also contend that the High Court erred in treating the interim relief granted by the Single Judge as equivalent to the final relief sought in the writ petition.

According to them, the principal relief in the writ petition is the quashing of the suspension order, whereas the permission to write examinations was granted only provisionally and subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.

They argue that the High Court's judgment has effectively foreclosed their academic opportunity at the interlocutory stage, since the examinations would be over by the time the writ petition is taken up for final adjudication..

The petition also refers to two FIRs registered in connection with the August 13 incident at the University.

The first FIR, was registered suo motu by the Kalady Police on the night of the incident. According to the petitioners, the FIR contained no allegations of a mock cremation or physical assault on the Vice Chancellor. A second FIR was registered on August 16, following a complaint submitted by the Vice Chancellor to the State Police Chief. The petitioners allege that the second FIR introduced allegations of a mock cremation and physical assault on the Vice Chancellor, invoking non-bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioners contend that the suspension imposed pending enquiry cannot operate as a punishment before any finding of guilt.

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