Case at a Glance
Sixteen students of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, suspended pending an enquiry into campus incidents of 13 August 2026, obtained an interim order from a Single Judge allowing them to pay fees and sit for examinations beginning 4 November 2026. A Division Bench allowed the University’s appeal the day before the exams. It held that courts cannot direct universities to act contrary to statutory regulations, that the writ petition contained no pleadings on the students’ eligibility such as minimum attendance, and that an interim order granting what was effectively the final relief required a very strong prima facie case, which was absent.
The students — pursuing MSW, MFA, MA, four-year undergraduate and Ph.D. programmes — were suspended by an order dated 1 September 2026, pending enquiry into incidents on campus on 13 August 2026, in respect of which two FIRs had been registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. An enquiry committee was constituted, and campus entry was restricted to hearing dates. They challenged the suspension in a writ petition filed on 12 October 2026 and sought a direction to accept their applications under the examination notification dated 3 October 2026.
On 30 October 2026, on a ‘today motion’, the Single Judge directed the University to accept their examination fees and allow them to appear in the examinations starting 4 November 2026, subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The University appealed, pointing out that the regulations require minimum attendance of 80% for MSW, MA and MFA (with limited condonation for MFA) and 75% for the undergraduate programme (with up to 20% condonation), that the students lacked attendance and had not passed internal examinations, and that no condonation applications had been filed in time. The students argued the shortfall was caused by the suspension itself.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a court, by an interim order, direct a university to permit suspended students to write examinations when their eligibility under the regulations is neither pleaded nor established?
Interim Relief Cannot Override Regulations
The Bench first held the writ appeal maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, noting that the order had been passed without giving the University time to obtain instructions. Applying Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, it found “there is total lack of pleadings on the entitlement of the petitioners to appear for the examinations”. Relying on Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI and State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, it reiterated that “the Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions” contrary to law. Under Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 04 SC CK 0073 and State of Kerala v. Pradeepkumar A.V., interim relief that is effectively the main relief needs a very strong prima facie case — which was not made out.
On the argument that the suspension caused the attendance shortfall, the Bench followed Principal, IES College of Engineering v. Anas P.M., where it was said that this is “essentially it is just a consequence of the order of suspension, which the students will have to necessarily suffer.” The Court also quoted the observation in Dr. Antony Thomas v. V.M. Muhammed Rafique that “Educational Institutions are meant for imparting education and not politics” and that “political activities like Dharna, hunger strikes and other practices like Sathyagrah have no place” in them. It declined to examine the merits of the criminal incidents, as the investigation was pending.
What the Court Actually Held
- Courts cannot direct universities to permit students to write examinations contrary to statutory regulations on eligibility such as minimum attendance.
- A writ petitioner must plead and prove the facts supporting entitlement; there were no pleadings here on the students’ eligibility to appear.
- Interim relief that amounts to granting the final relief requires a very strong prima facie case, which was absent; the consequences of a suspension order, including attendance shortfall, ordinarily fall on the students.
- The writ appeal was allowed and the Single Judge’s interim order dated 30 October 2026 was set aside; the observations were confined to the appeal.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It sets limits on last-minute interim orders that let students sit for exams without meeting eligibility rules.
- It reinforces that suspension pending enquiry has consequences that courts will not lightly undo through interim relief.
- Universities and students both get clarity that regulations on attendance and condonation must be followed and pleaded.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Students
- If you are suspended, apply for condonation of attendance within the prescribed time and in the prescribed form.
- In a writ petition, plead your eligibility to write the exam — attendance, internals and fee payment.
- Challenge the suspension itself promptly, since its consequences may otherwise be borne by you.
For Counsel
- Rely on Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana on the need for pleadings in writ petitions.
- Interim relief that equals final relief needs a very strong prima facie case under Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra.
- An intra-court appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act lies against such interim orders.
Key Takeaways
- No court direction can override university eligibility regulations.
- Eligibility must be specifically pleaded in the writ petition.
- Attendance lost due to suspension is ordinarily the students’ burden.
- The interim order allowing 16 suspended students to write exams was set aside.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a court allow students short of attendance to write exams?
The Kerala High Court held that courts cannot direct universities to act contrary to statutory regulations; eligibility conditions like minimum attendance must be met and pleaded.
What if the attendance shortage was caused by suspension?
Following an earlier Division Bench ruling, the Court said that is ordinarily a consequence of the suspension which the students must bear.
Did the Court decide whether the suspension was valid?
No. The challenge to the suspension remains pending before the Single Judge; the Division Bench only set aside the interim order and clarified that its observations were confined to the appeal.
Conclusion
The Division Bench drew a firm line between sympathy and statute. However pressing the exam schedule, an interim order cannot hand students the final relief they seek when their eligibility was never pleaded and the regulations point the other way.
Practical takeaway: Students facing suspension should pursue condonation and plead eligibility clearly; a last-minute writ asking only to sit the exam is unlikely to survive appeal.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com