Kerala HC sets aside order allowing suspended Sanskrit varsity students to write exams

The Kerala High Court has set aside an interim order allowing 16 suspended students of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, to write their semester examinations, holding that they had not established their eligibility under the university regulations, including the minimum attendance requirement. The students had argued that any shortage in attendance was a consequence of their suspension by the university, which prevented them from attending classes.

A Division Bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and Muralee Krishna S, on November 3, Tuesday, allowed an appeal filed by the university, headed by Vice-Chancellor Ciza Thomas, against the Single Bench order permitting the students to appear for examinations scheduled to begin on November 4. The Bench held that the students had not adequately pleaded or produced supporting material to establish their eligibility, and that the interim order had effectively granted them the main relief sought in their writ petition.

The Bench said that the students had not submitted applications seeking condonation of attendance shortage in accordance with the applicable regulations. Such applications were required to be supported by the prescribed documents and recommendations from the respective Heads of Departments or Directors of Centres.

The court also pointed out that the university's examination notification required candidates to submit their applications within stipulated deadlines, along with attendance certificates, progress reports and proof of examination fee payment. The students had not completed these formalities, it noted.

Archana, SFI unit president at the university said they did not expect the court to issue an order in this manner. “We have now come to understand that we will not be allowed to appear for the examination. The injustice against us continues. Our fundamental rights were violated. We will continue our protest,” she told the media.  

Another student who was protesting asked, “how can the suspended students have attendance? We have attendance till the day of suspension. How can you expect attendance for the 64 days that we were under suspension? We don’t know what the court examined. We are also unaware of the arguments from the university. We also do not know whether the university submitted anything misleading before the court,” another student said. 

The students decided to stage a play on the campus on Tuesday, October 3, as a protest to being denied to appear for examination. 

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra, the Bench explained that interim relief which effectively grants the final relief sought in a case can be issued only in exceptional circumstances, where there is an exceptionally strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience and irreparable injury overwhelmingly favour the applicant.

Applying this principle, the court said the students' pleadings did not establish the level of prima facie case required for such relief. "When the interim relief granted by the learned Single Judge ... is virtually the main relief sought for in the writ petition ... the said interim order cannot be sustained in law," it held.

The Division Bench also took note of the fact that the Single Bench had issued the direction on October 30, when the students' application was taken up as a 'today motion'. The university's Standing Counsel had not been given an opportunity to obtain the necessary instructions before the order was passed. The Bench held that the direction substantially affected the university's rights and was therefore open to challenge through an intra-court appeal.

Attendance shortage and suspension

The university had argued that the students did not meet the minimum attendance requirements prescribed for their respective courses and had not cleared the necessary internal examinations. It also contended that they had missed the deadlines for examination registration.

The students, on the other hand, argued that any shortage in attendance was a consequence of their suspension, which itself was under challenge before the High Court. Their counsel maintained that they had the requisite attendance and had cleared their internal examinations.

The Bench referred to an earlier Division Bench judgment in Principal, IES College of Engineering v. Anas PM, which dealt with students whose attendance had fallen short following their suspension.

The earlier judgment had observed that attendance shortage resulting from a suspension was a consequence students would have to face. It had further stated that permitting students to take examinations despite not attending classes could amount to giving them a "premium on the offence committed by the students".

The Bench also referred to an earlier ruling in Dr Antony Thomas v. VM Muhammed Rafique, which had held that protests such as dharnas, hunger strikes and satyagraha had no place in educational institutions. The earlier ruling had emphasised that academic institutions were meant for education and not political activities.

Court refrains from examining protest allegations

The dispute arose from a protest held on the university campus on August 13, 2026, during a Syndicate meeting. The university accused the students of staging a mock funeral of Vice-Chancellor Ciza Thomas, manhandling her and attempting to damage her vehicle as she left the campus.

The students, however, maintained that the demonstration depicting a fake funeral was part of a street play organised to highlight the longstanding neglect of the university's Theatre Department. They denied the allegations levelled against them.

Two FIRs were registered at the Kalady police station in connection with the incident. The university subsequently suspended the students on September 1, pending disciplinary proceedings.

However, the Division Bench made it clear that it would not examine the rival claims concerning the August 13 incident, as the police investigation was still underway. The judgment states that the court did not consider it appropriate to make observations on those allegations at this stage.

The students had approached the High Court challenging their suspension and prolonged exclusion from the campus, arguing that the delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings was affecting their education. They contended that their protest was against the lack of basic facilities and other shortcomings at the university and denied the allegations concerning the mock cremation.

While their writ petition remained pending, they sought permission to participate in the November 4 examinations. A Single Bench allowed the request on October 30, directing the university to accept their examination fees and provisionally permit them to write the tests, subject to the final outcome of the petition.

The Division Bench has now set aside that interim direction. It clarified that its observations concerning the merits of the issues pending before the Single Bench were made only for deciding the university's appeal.