Answer Unpalatable To A Section Of Society: Kerala Govt Tells High Court Defending Suspension Of Teacher For Framing Question On VD Savarkar
The High Court was hearing a plea by the teacher challenging his suspension and initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
During the hearing before the Kerala High Court on the plea assailing the suspension of a government school teacher for framing a question about freedom fighter V. D. Savarkar, the State of Kerala submitted today that the answer given by the Petitioner-teacher was unpalatable to a section of the society.
The State government also submitted that the "controversial question and controversial answer" have created a misunderstanding among students.
The question which led to suspension was "Who was the Freedom Fighter who received the maximum punishment from the British?" The answer was given as "V.D. Savarkar".
Special Government Pleader Muhamood TT, appearing for the State government, submitted that the action of the Teacher cannot be seen as an "innocent act".
He submitted that there were other freedom fighters who had undergone imprisonment for a longer period compared to Savarkar and cited the names of Udanta Sai and Traillokya Nath Chakravarty.
The Bench of Justice Viju Abraham heard both the parties and adjourned the matter to tomorrow, August 19, for pronouncement of order on the interlocutory application.
On the last date of hearing, the Court had asked the State to respond to the petition.
Advocate K.S. Bharathan appeared for the Petitioner in the writ petition filed by the Upper Primary School Teacher who was placed under suspension pursuant to an order issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Kasaragod, who had also initiated disciplinary proceedings.
The said suspension was ordered under Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, following the conduct of the "Social Science Club Freedom Quiz 2026", wherein a tie-breaker question regarding the freedom fighter who received the maximum punishment from the Britishers had the designated answer key as V.D. Savarkar.
The Petitioner contended that the action against the Petitioner was pursuant to the direction of the Minister for General Education of the State, N. Samsudheen.
It was submitted by the Petitioner that the impugned order was passed in violation of the provisions of the Act as the impugned order did not specify why the proviso to Section 12A(2)(a) of the Kerala Education Act was not resorted to by the 3rd respondent.
The Petitioner contended that proceedings initiated against him were on account of a needless controversy that emanated out of the question aforesaid. Petitioner was being put under suspension because the answer to a question in the question paper was not palatable to a section of society.
The Petitioner also added that the concerned respondent could not have overridden the proviso of Section 12A(2) in view of the fact that the appointing authority of the petitioner was the 6th respondent – Manager of AUPS, Pallathadka, who was also his disciplinary authority.
Cause Title: Guruprasad Rai K v. State of Kerala & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 27818 of 2026]