Suspended Students Cannot Write Exams Without Meeting Attendance Rules, Rules Kerala High Court in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Archana P. S.
Case: Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Others v. Archana P. S. and Others
Date of Judgment: 03 November 2026
Court: High Court of Kerala
Coram: Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S.
Court Observation
“There is total lack of pleading in the writ petition regarding the entitlement of the petitioners other than PhD scholars to appear in the examination which was scheduled to commence on 04/11/2026 as per the requirements. Therefore the pleadings do not make out a very strong prima facie case as per the requirements laid down by the Apex Court and the impugned order granted by the learned Single Judge by order dated 30/10/2026 is virtually the main relief sought by the petitioner. The said interim order cannot be sustained.”
Summary
The Kerala High Court has set aside a single judge’s interim order that permitted 16 suspended students of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, to appear for university examinations scheduled to begin on 04 November 2026. The Division Bench held that the students had not established their eligibility under the university regulations, including the minimum attendance requirement, and had not submitted applications seeking condonation of attendance shortage in accordance with the regulations.
The Court held that an interim order which virtually grants the main relief sought in the writ petition cannot be sustained in law, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra. It reiterated, citing its 2017 ruling in Dr. Antony Thomas v. V. M. Muhammed Rafique, that political activities such as dharnas, hunger strikes and satyagraha have no place in a constitutional democracy, much less in academic institutions, and that educational institutions are meant for imparting education and not politics. It clarified that its observations on the merits were made only for deciding the appeal and were not a final comment on the dispute pending before the single judge.
Key Holdings
- Students who have not pleaded or produced material establishing their eligibility under university regulations, including minimum attendance, cannot be permitted to appear for examinations by interim order.
- An interim order that virtually grants the main relief sought in the writ petition cannot be sustained in law.
- Political activities such as dharnas, hunger strikes and satyagraha have no place in a constitutional democracy, much less in academic institutions; students indulging in such activities on campus render themselves liable to expulsion or rustication.
- Observations made while deciding an appeal against an interim order are not a final adjudication of the pending writ petition.
Background
The 16 students, members of the Students’ Federation of India pursuing MSW, MFA, MA, FYUGP and PhD programmes, were suspended on 01 September 2026 pending an inquiry into incidents at a protest on the university campus on 13 August 2026, during a Syndicate meeting, at which the university alleged they staged a mock funeral of Vice-Chancellor Ciza Thomas, manhandled her and attempted to damage her vehicle. A single judge, by an interim order dated 30 October 2026, directed the university to accept their examination fees and permit them to write the examinations, subject to the final outcome of their writ petition. The university appealed, and the Division Bench has now set aside that interim order. The students have since approached the Supreme Court challenging the Division Bench order.
Related Articles
- Expert Panel on Vizhinjam Coastal Erosion Was Flawed by Conflicts of Interest, Rules Kerala High Court
- Settlement Ends Prosecution: Cheating Case Against Actor and Director Quashed, Rules Kerala High Court
- Executive Protocol Cannot Dilute Constitutional Safeguards, Rules Kerala High Court
Judgment Link: Read the full judgment (PDF)
Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.
