Invokes Ambedkar’s ‘Grammar of Anarchy’ Warning on Civil Disobedience, Protests
JATIN GANDHI NOV 3, NEW DELHI
The Kerala High Court has set aside an interim order permitting students suspended by the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, to appear for upcoming examinations, holding that a court cannot direct a university to bypass examination eligibility requirements prescribed under its regulations.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. allowed an appeal filed by the university, setting aside a Single Judge’s October 30 order that had directed it to accept examination fees and permit the students to write examinations scheduled to begin on November 4.
The case concerns 16 students who were placed under suspension by the university on September 1, pending an inquiry into incidents allegedly occurring on the campus on August 13. Two FIRs were registered at the Kalady police station in connection with the incidents under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The university had also constituted an inquiry committee.
The students subsequently approached the High Court, challenging their suspension and alleging that the prolonged action had prevented them from attending classes and caused academic loss. They also sought permission to participate in the examinations notified by the university on October 3.
The Single Judge, while hearing an interim application on October 30, had permitted them to appear for the examinations, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. The order clarified that appearing for the examinations would not confer any right or equity on the students in the main case.
Challenging this direction, the university contended that the students did not meet the prescribed minimum attendance requirements and had not cleared the requisite internal examinations. It also argued that they had not submitted examination applications within the stipulated deadlines, accompanied by attendance certificates, progress reports and proof of fee payment.
The university further submitted that none of the students had applied for condonation of attendance shortage in the manner prescribed under the regulations applicable to their respective courses.
The students, however, argued that any attendance shortage was attributable to their suspension and should not be held against them. Their counsel also submitted that they had the required attendance and had cleared their internal examinations.
The Division Bench held that the students’ entitlement to appear for the examinations had not been properly pleaded or substantiated in the original writ petition. It noted that the regulations governing different courses prescribed minimum attendance thresholds and specific procedures for seeking condonation of shortages, including supporting documents and recommendations from the respective heads of departments.
The court referred to Supreme Court judgments, including Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, to reiterate that facts supporting a claim in a writ petition must be pleaded and substantiated. It also relied on the principle that courts cannot issue directions requiring authorities to act contrary to statutory provisions or regulations.
The Bench examined the attendance requirements applicable to the various programmes. While the MSW, MFA and MA regulations prescribe minimum attendance of 80 per cent, the Four-Year Undergraduate Programme requires 75 per cent attendance. The regulations also provide for limited condonation of attendance shortages, subject to prescribed conditions and supporting documents.
The court observed that the interim relief granted by the Single Judge effectively amounted to granting the principal relief sought in the writ petition, without establishing a sufficiently strong prima facie case. It said such exceptional interim relief could not be granted in the absence of the necessary pleadings and supporting material.
The Bench also relied on an earlier Division Bench judgment in Principal, IES College of Engineering v. Anas P.M., which had held that attendance shortage resulting from a suspension order was a consequence students would have to suffer.
The court clarified that it was not examining rival contentions concerning the August 13 campus incidents, as the police investigation was still under way. It also clarified that its observations on the merits of the dispute were confined to deciding the writ appeal and would not prejudice consideration of the pending writ petition.
The judgment was delivered on November 3. The main writ petition challenging the suspension remains pending before the Single Judge.