University Must Be Guardian Of Higher Education System; Its Functioning Can’t Be Derailed By Political Considerations: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court emphasized that the University must be the guardian of the higher education system and its functioning cannot be derailed by political or other considerations.

The Court emphasized thus in a Writ Petition seeking to quash the Orders and to direct the Vice Chancellor (VC) of the University of Kerala not to prevent the Petitioner from discharging his duties as Registrar of the University.

A Single Bench of Justice T.R. Ravi observed, “The University is supposed to be the guardian of the Higher Education System and its functioning cannot be derailed by political or other considerations and should be guided only by academic considerations. The understanding of the Vice Chancellor regarding the scope of placing the issue regarding suspension before the Syndicate cannot be said to be correct.”

The Bench said that the decision taken by the Syndicate will necessarily be binding on the VC and the VC will have to give effect to it, subject to the powers of the Chancellor.

Senior Advocate Elvin Peter P.J. and Advocate K.R. Ganesh represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate P. Ravindran, Standing Counsel Thomas Abraham, Advocates Girija K. Gopal, M.R. Sabu, and T.C. Krishna represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner sought for a declaration that the Orders issued by the VC are without any authority of law, arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, illegal, void, and non est. The Petitioner was appointed as the Registrar of the University in the year 2021. The term of the office was four years. Pursuant to Orders of the High Court in a Writ Petition filed by a Syndicate member, a meeting of the Syndicate was convened and the Petitioner was re-appointed as the Registrar. In June 2025, a seminar was conducted in the Senate Hall after the request by the Secretary of Sree Padmanabha Seva Samithi.

Allegedly, religious emblems were installed on the stage and the Petitioner had directed the Public Relations Officer of the University to inspect and report back. The Petitioner was informed by the security officer and police officials that the students belonging to different student unions like the Kerala Students Union and the Students Federation of India were in altercation with students belonging to Akhila Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad and certain persons belonging to the RSS and there was a possibility of eruption of violence. Hence, the Petitioner cancelled the event on account of security concerns. However, the Petitioner was suspended by the VC invoking Statute 19 of Chapter 4, Part III of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 and Section 10 (13) of the Kerala University Act.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above regard, remarked, “The agenda for the meeting was finalisation of the statement of facts to be placed before the Court in a pending writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the suspension. It is evident from the records that the meeting was convened on the request of some Syndicate members and the purpose stated in the request was also for finalisation of the statement of facts. The agenda was not regarding the requirement of continuing the suspension. The Vice Chancellor's justification is on the above premise.”

The Court added that what the VC missed is the fact that it was open for the Syndicate to have decided not to continue with the suspension which had been ordered by the VC and the University could have placed such a decision before the Court, which was considering the issue of correctness of suspension and there was not even a necessity to file a counter affidavit.

“It is not necessary that every writ petition filed before this Court should be countered by the respondent and it is always open for the respondent to admit the case of the petitioner and end the controversy. Viewed from that angle, the Vice Chancellor could have exercised his power to have an additional agenda and continued with the meeting”, it noted.

The Court further said that it is not for the Court to go into the correctness of the decision of the VC, since it is not fully aware with the physical situation which was prevalent during the meeting which had led to dissolution of the meeting.

“Having said that, it was also not open to the members of the Syndicate to convene a second meeting under the guise that they are supported by Statute 1(2) of Chapter VI and take decisions, as already observed in the judgment in W.P (C)Nos.3197 & 5548 of 2025. This can lead to several mischievous situations”, it observed.

Conclusion

The Court also enunciated that Section 21 of the Act, which deals with the constitution of the Syndicate read along with Statute 2 of Chapter VI would show that the quorum for a meeting is only about one third of the total members.

“In view of the above findings regarding the correctness of the second meeting held, it is not necessary to probe further. The challenge against the suspension hence fails and the prayers regarding the same are rejected”, it added.

The Court, therefore, directed the VC to convene a meeting of the Syndicate through the Registrar in Charge to consider whether the suspension should be continued and the Syndicate may decide accordingly.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition and issued necessary directions.

Cause Title- Prof. Dr. K.S. Anilkumar v. The University of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:66971)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Elvin Peter P.J., Advocates K.R. Ganesh, Adarsh Babu C.S., Ahsana E., and Ashik J. Varghese.

Respondents: Senior Advocate P. Ravindran, Standing Counsel Thomas Abraham, Advocates Girija K. Gopal, M.R. Sabu, T.C. Krishna, P. Anirudhan, Aparna Rajan, Sreedhar Ravindran, Fathima Parveen P.S., K.N. Vigy, and Soorya Mariya Kurian.

Click here to read/download the Judgment