An unusual situation has been unfolding at the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (SSUS) in Kalady, Ernakulam, where a protest has continued for nearly four months, leading to the suspension of 16 students, all members of the Student Federation of India (SFI).
The university has approached the court, seeking permission to prevent the 16 suspended students from appearing for their examinations. The protest has since spilled over to another campus, where SFI students have questioned the Education Minister over the issue and have themselves been suspended. And now, students have begun a hunger strike, which has received support from the Cockroach Janata Party.
“We are the students of this campus. Not violent protesters,” said Aswanth VM, a Malayalam-language PhD scholar at the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (SSUS) in Kalady, Ernakulam. Aswanth is one of three students on an indefinite hunger strike in front of the university. They are demanding the university’s permission to sit for their examinations and for the revocation of suspensions of 16 students.
“We will continue our protest until the university agrees to our demand,” Aswanth added.
The protest has since spilt over to another campus, the Maharajah’s College in Ernakulam, where SFI students questioned the Education Minister over the issue and were themselves suspended.
When TNM visited the university on October 5, the three students, Aswanth, Archana and KV Abhijith – also members of the Students Federation of India (SFI), the student organisation of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] – were on the fifth day of their hunger strike.
What began as a student protest under SFI on July 22 later escalated into a dispute that reached the Supreme Court of India, with the students seeking a favourable judgement to write their semester examinations. On November 3, the SC declined to entertain the plea and directed a single bench of the Kerala High Court to hear and resolve the matter expeditiously. The court noted that the university gave assurances to conduct special examinations if the students receive a favourable ruling, as reflected in the official record.
The SSUS witnessed protests over infrastructure, academic administration and other students' concerns for years. “This is not a new protest. For years, we have been holding protests here, raising various demands. Whenever some of our demands remain unfulfilled, we raise those demands again and continue our protests. It was in that context that we resumed the protest on July 22," Rithisha, Kerala’s first transgender PhD student and one among the 16 suspended students, said.
On July 22, the students raised an 18-point charter of demands concerning campus rights, infrastructure, and academic administration. The students also complained that the Vice Chancellor Ciza Thomas, was at the university on most days, and this was causing academic delays.
The protest took another turn on August 13, during the first meeting of the university's reconstituted syndicate. Students from the Department of Theatre staged a street play, which symbolically represented the funeral of stage lights that did not work. According to organisers, it was intended to draw attention to the department's long-standing grievances, particularly the condition of its lighting equipment. The university, however, interpreted the performance as a mock funeral of Vice-Chancellor Ciza Thomas.
MS Shivakumar, a second-year MA theatre student and the director of the play Light Mariche (Light Died), said one of the 18 demands raised by the SFI during its protest was the improvement of basic infrastructure in the Theatre Department. “It was in this context that we put together a small performance. It was a satirical performance that highlighted the fact that the lights in the theatre were not functioning. The mock funeral was for the theatre lights,” he said.
Media reports about the play misrepresented it as a mock funeral of the VC, leading to allegations of impropriety. Higher education minister Roji M John called the student protest an ‘uncivilised protest’. He also alleged that there was an attempt to attack the VC, and a complaint was filed by her. “We are not against any democratic form of protest,” he said.
On August 13, the Kalady police registered a suo motu case against 65 students. The FIR said, “The students stopped the Vice Chancellor and the syndicate members who were returning from a meeting by shouting slogans.” It also said they used force to obstruct the police from doing their duty.
Three days later, on August 17, the Kalady police registered another FIR when Ciza Thomas filed a complaint against the protesters. It alleged that protesters had manhandled her and attempted to damage her vehicle as she left the campus. She also alleged that the students conducted a funeral for her.
Addressing the media, Chief Minister VD Satheesan said that the suspension was not for the mock funeral but for the attacks against the VC. “The students attacked the VC and syndicate members. But there is no visual for that. The action was following this,” CM said.
The students and the SFI leadership denied the allegations of physical harassment and damage to the vehicle.
“We are being portrayed as uncivilised and violent protesters. There is a grill gate in front of the Administrative Block, and whenever there is a protest, that gate is closed. The Syndicate meeting is held on the first floor, and the lift leading to that floor is switched off. Even the Chief Minister himself has said that there is no evidence to support the allegations. But there are cameras both outside the building and inside the hall where the Syndicate meeting takes place. The CCTV footage itself will make the facts clear,” said Archana, SFI unit president at the university and one of the students who sat on the hunger strike.
Apart from the suspension of 16 students, four SFI activists were arrested and subsequently granted bail by the Perumbavoor Judicial First Class Magistrate Court.
At a Syndicate meeting on November 2, the university decided to permit the conditional withdrawal of the suspension of 12 of the 16 students. The condition was that they submit an unconditional apology and give an assurance that they would not violate the university's disciplinary norms in the future. The suspension of the remaining four students was extended by another two months.
The students rejected the proposal, insisting that they would not apologise for participating in a protest. They demanded the unconditional withdrawal of all 16 suspension orders.
Later in November, SFI subsequently began an indefinite relay fast on the campus, demanding the withdrawal of the suspensions without conditions.
With their suspension preventing them from attending classes, the students faced another immediate difficulty: appearing for their semester examinations scheduled to begin on November 4.
They approached the Kerala High Court, arguing that the attendance shortage they were accused of having was a consequence of the university's decision to suspend them and prevent them from entering the campus. “The students are not allowed to enter the campus during the suspension period. How can we then achieve the attendance criteria?” KV Abhijith, a third-year PhD student of manuscriptology, asked.
“Whom is the university for? It is meant for the students. The university exists for the students. The teachers, faculty members and everyone else are part of this institution because of the students. Yet, the university is going to court against those very students,” Abhijith added.
On October 30, a single bench of the High Court directed the university to provisionally allow the suspended students to write their examinations and accept their examination fees, subject to the final outcome of their pending petition.
The order offered temporary relief to the students, but the university challenged it before a division bench.
On November 3, a division bench comprising Justices Anil K Narendran and Muralee Krishna S set aside the single judge’s direction, holding that the students had not established their eligibility under the university's examination regulations.
The students have since approached the Supreme Court, challenging this decision. However, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Kerala High Court division bench order.
The students' central argument was that the university could not hold their attendance shortage against them when it was the university's suspension orders that had prevented them from attending classes.
The court referred to its 2023 judgement in Principal, IES College of Engineering vs Anas PM and others, which dealt with a similar situation involving students whose attendance fell short following suspension.
The earlier judgement had held that attendance shortage resulting from suspension was a consequence students would have to face. It also observed that allowing students to appear for examinations despite not attending the required classes could amount to giving them a "premium on the offence committed by the students".
Relying on this precedent, the division bench did not accept the students' argument as sufficient grounds for granting them interim permission to write the examinations.
It also pointed out that the students had not followed the prescribed procedure for seeking condonation of attendance shortage, including submitting the required applications and supporting documents.
The Bench further relied on the Supreme Court's judgement in Deoraj vs State of Maharashtra, which sets out the exceptional circumstances in which courts can grant interim relief that effectively provides the main relief sought in a case.
Since allowing the students to write the examinations would have substantially granted the immediate relief sought in their petition, the court held that the necessary grounds for such an order had not been established.
The November 3 order, however, did not determine whether the students were responsible for the alleged misconduct during the August 13 performance.
An important and contentious aspect of the November 3 order was the division bench's reference to a 2017 Kerala High Court judgement in Dr Antony Thomas vs VM Muhammed Rafique and others.
The earlier judgement had held that political activities such as dharnas, hunger strikes and satyagraha had no place in educational institutions. It had also observed that students participating in such activities could face expulsion or rustication.
The November 3 bench reproduced these observations, including the earlier judgement's assertion that educational institutions were meant for imparting education and not politics.
The 2017 judgement had also invoked Dr BR Ambedkar's speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949. Ambedkar had cautioned against abandoning constitutional methods such as civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha when democratic and constitutional avenues were available.
The division bench declined to examine the rival allegations over the August 13 protest, including the university’s claim that the Vice-Chancellor was harassed and her vehicle targeted, which the students deny, as the police investigation is still underway. Its November 3 judgement was confined to the suspended students’ examination eligibility and the legality of the single bench’s interim order, leaving the disciplinary proceedings and police probe separate.
The CPI(M) has backed the students' position. Party State secretary MV Govindan said that the SFI activists would not tender an apology.
Higher Education Minister Roji M John, meanwhile, said that the government and the Syndicate were not opposed to allowing the students to write their examinations but insisted that they acknowledge their mistake and submit a written apology.
The students say they will continue the hunger strike until the university revokes the suspension of 16 students and addresses their issues.
Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.