AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by a third party to W.P.(C)No.30520 of 2025, challenging the judgment dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.
By the order dated 14.10.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025, we allowed that application filed by the appellant seeking leave to file the appeal and accordingly the Registry was directed to number the writ appeal and list for admission.
W.P.(C)No.30520 of 2025 was filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs;
“1.To call for records leading to Exhibit P6 to Exhibit P8 suspension orders passed respondent no.7-principal and quash the same by issuance of writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, in the interest of justice;
2.To call for records leading to Exhibit P13 to Exhibit P15 orders of respondent no.7-principal and quash the same by issuance of writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, in the interest of justice;
3.To call for records leading to Exhibit P20 order of respondent no.4- Board of Adjudication of Students Grievance and quash the same by issuance of writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, in the interest of justice;
4.To call for records leading to Exhibit P22 to Exhibit P22(b) orders of respondent no.7-principal and quash the same by issuance of writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, in the interest of justice;
5.Declare that the disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioners evident from Exhibit P6 to Exhibit P8 and Exhibit P13 to Exhibit P15 of respondent no.7-principal is no longer valid in view of petitioners completing studies and issued with Provisional Degree Certificates evident from Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P3 by the University;
6.Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the respondents no.1 to 4 to reconsider Exhibit P16 to Exhibit P16(b) representation submitted by the petitioners in the light of law laid down in Sree Sankara Vidyapeetom College, Perumbavoor & Anr. v. Akhil P.K & Ors. [2019 KHC 942], Pattakka Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala [2024(1) KHC 55] and Ruwaise E.A (Dr.) v. Principal Govt. Medical College, Ulloor [2024 KHC 1083], with in time limit fixed by this Hon’ble Court.”
The facts which led to the filing of W.P.(C)No.30520 of 2025 in brief are as under:
The respondents 1 to 3 were students of B.Sc.Nursing course in the 9th respondent College. A roommate of respondents 1 to 3, who is the daughter of the appellant herein, committed suicide on 15.11.2024. In respect of that incident, crime No.1582 of 2024 of Pathanamthitta Police Station was registered initially under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) in which the respondents 1 to 3 were later added as accused by incorporating the penal provisions under Sections 108, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘BNS’ for short) and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’ for short). Pursuant to the registration of the criminal case against respondents 1 to 3, the college authorities placed them under suspension with effect from 22.11.2024, the orders of which are produced as Exts.P6 to P8 in the writ petition. Subsequently, the respondents 1 to 3 were granted bail by the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, as per Ext.P9 order dated 07.12.2024 in Crl. M.P.No.8917 of 2024.
The respondents 1 to 3 thereafter submitted Exts.P10 to P12 respective representations dated 11.12.2024 before the Principal of the College asking him to withdraw the suspension order passed against them and to do the needful to facilitate their appearance in the final regular university theory examination which was scheduled to begin on 13.01.2025. Vide Exts.P13 to P15 communications dated 12.12.2024, the principal informed respondents 1 to 3 that the suspension against them can be withdrawn only on their exoneration from the allegations in the criminal case. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 3 submitted Exts.P16 to P16(b) representations dated 13.12.2024 to respondents 4 to 7, seeking their intervention in the matter. They subsequently approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.45304 of 2024. By various interim orders, this Court permitted respondents 1 to 3 to participate in the examinations and practical training for the completion of the course. Later, by Ext.P17 judgment dated 04.04.2025, this Court disposed of that writ petition, directing the 7th respondent Board of Adjudication of Students Grievances to consider Exts. P16 to P16(b) representations and take a decision in the matter and also held that examinations appeared/written by respondents 1 to 3 pursuant to the interim orders of this Court shall be treated as regular. This Court further directed publication of results of respondents 1 to 3, leaving anything on that aspect to be decided by the University.
The respondents 1 to 3 state that the 7th respondent did not consider Exts.P16 to P16(b) representations, but only decided to publish the results of respondents 1 to 3 by Ext.P18 order dated 04.06.2025. The respondents 1 to 3 were issued with provisional degree certificates by the 4th respondent University after publication of results. Exts. P1 to P3 produced in the writ petition are the copies of the provisional degree certificates issued to the respective respondents 1 to 3. Since aggrieved by the non-consideration of Exts.P16 to P16(b) representations while passing Ext.P18 order by the 7th respondent, respondents 1 to 3 filed Contempt Case (C) No.1555 of 2025 against the 7th respondent before this Court. Subsequently, the 7th respondent passed Ext.P19 order dated 06.08.2025, directing respondents 1 to 3 to approach the 10th respondent Principal.
In the meanwhile, respondents 1 to 3 finalised their online registration process with the 8th respondent, Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council. They subsequently submitted Exts.P21 to 21(b) requests dated 05.08.2025 before the 10th respondent Principal, seeking issuance of transfer certificates as well as course and conduct certificates and also seeking support in submitting application for registration before the 8th respondent Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council. But the 10th respondent Principal rejected those requests by Exts.P22 to P22(b) orders dated 05.08.2025, stating that this Court did not decide against Exts. P6 to P8 suspension orders or Exts. P13 to P15 orders refusing to withdraw suspension while passing Ext.P17 judgment, or the 4th respondent University had not taken a decision on the said matter as directed in Ext.P17 judgment. It was under those circumstances that the respondents 1 to 3-writ petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.30520 of 2025, seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
On 23.09.2025, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, disposed of the writ petition directing respondents 10 and 11 to issue course, conduct and transfer certificates to respondents 1 to 3 expeditiously. The learned Single Judge further directed that if respondents 1 to 3 intend to register with the 8th respondent, Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council, respondents 10 and 11 shall forward the application of respondents 1 to 3 to that effect, in terms of Ext.P20 guidelines. Paragraphs 5 to 7 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;
“5.The petitioners were suspended pending disciplinary proceedings on certain charges alleged against the petitioners. In the meanwhile, the petitioners have completed their course. The petitioners now want to register themselves as Nurses with the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council.
6.The petitioners state that in view of the disciplinary proceedings, the College authorities are not issuing Course, Conduct and Transfer Certificates. These are all documents which are highly necessary for the petitioners for higher studies or for registering with the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council.
7.As per Exts.P6 to P8 orders, the petitioners were suspended for an indefinite period. It is not disputed that the petitioners have now completed the course. If the petitioners have completed the course, ordinarily disciplinary proceedings are not proceeded with further. In view of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the College authorities will not be justified in withholding Certificates/mark list etc. deliverable to the petitioners. In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 7 and 8 to issue Course, Conduct and Transfer Certificates to the petitioners expeditiously. If the petitioners intend to register with the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council, respondents 7 and 8 shall also forward the applications of the petitioners to that effect, in terms of Ext.P20 guidelines”.
Being aggrieved by the directions issued in favour of respondents 1 to 3, the appellant, who is the father of the deceased student who committed suicide, approached this Court with the present writ appeal.
On 17.10.2025, when the writ appeal came up for admission, this Court admitted the same on file. The learned Counsel/Standing Counsel entered appearance for respective respondents.
On 28.01.2026, after hearing the preliminary arguments addressed at the Bar, we directed the learned Standing Counsel for the University to make available for the perusal of this Court the entire files relating to Ext.P19 proceedings dated 06.08.2025 of the 7th respondent Board of Adjudication for Students' Grievances. The learned counsel for respondents 9 to 11 was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court the files related to disciplinary proceedings initiated against respondents 1 to 3.
On 11.02.2026, when this writ appeal was taken up for consideration, pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 28.01.2026, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent university made available for the perusal of this Court a copy of University file U.O.No.711/2025/dean/KUHS dated 06.08.2025. The learned counsel for respondents 9 to 11 has made available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to the proceedings initiated based on the complaint made by the appellant herein. Registry was directed to keep the said files in safe custody with the Registrar (Judicial).
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 4 to 7, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 9 to 11 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 8ᵗʰ respondent.
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had given various complaints against the ragging met by his daughter to the college authorities. However, no action was taken on those complaints. The appellant was not a party to the writ petition and hence could not raise any contentions against the reliefs sought in the writ petition. Therefore, the impugned judgment in the writ petition may be set aside.
The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 argued that before their suspension itself, the respondents 1 to 3 had acquired sufficient attendance for attending the University examinations. They were released on bail as per Ext.P9 order of the Sessions Judge dated 07.12.2024 in Crl. M.P.No.8917 of 2024. By virtue of Ext.P17 judgment in W.P.(C)No.45304 of 2024, the learned Single Judge directed that the examinations appeared/written by respondents 1 to 3 pursuant to the interim orders in that writ petition be treated as regular. The appellant was self-impleaded in that writ petition as additional 9th respondent. Ext.P17 judgment has attained finality. By pointing out Chapter XXIX of the Kerala University of Health Sciences First Statutes, 2013, the learned counsel argued that, only if respondents 1 to 3 are convicted in the crime registered against them, the degree certificates issued to them can be cancelled. The respondents 1 to 3 are facing the criminal case registered against them, and it has not reached the stage of conviction. By pointing out the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Pattakka Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala [2024 (1) KHC 55], the learned counsel argued that in that case even a convict was permitted to continue his education, considering it as a right of a citizen to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the respondents 1 to 3 are only accused of a crime, and they may not be denied their educational rights.
The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 4 to 7 argued that Section 63 of the Kerala University Health Sciences Act, 2010 (‘University Act’ for short) deals with registered graduates and, as per Section 63(2)(iii) of the said Act, only a convict for an offence involving moral turpitude is disqualified to have his name entered in the register of graduates. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out Section 63(5) of the University Act regarding the power of the Chancellor, on the recommendation of the Governing Council, to remove the name of any person from the register of graduates. According to the learned Senior Counsel, those provisions are not applicable to the case of respondents 1 to 3, since they are not convicts in the criminal case.
The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 9 to 11 also addressed arguments in a similar line as that of the learned Senior Counsel for respondents 4 to 7 and submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 had already completed their course and left the college. The college had taken all steps possible when allegations were raised against respondents 1 to 3, and they are implicated in the criminal case. But the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them could not be finalised since they have left the college after completing the course.
The learned Standing Counsel for the 8th respondent submitted that the issue of registration of the respondents 1 to 3 with the 8th respondent is under consideration in another writ petition pending before this Court.
We have carefully perused the pleadings and materials on record and appreciated the arguments addressed at the Bar. The respondents 1 to 3 were suspended from the 9th respondent college when they were implicated in crime No.1582 of 2024, which was registered in respect of the suicide committed by the daughter of the appellant. Before the suspension itself, they had secured sufficient attendance to be eligible to attend the university examinations. While under suspension, the respondents 1 to 3 have completed their course and, on the strength of interim orders granted by this Court in W.P.(C)No. 45304 of 2024, they attended the university examinations. By Ext.P17 final judgment dated 04.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No. 45304 of 2024, this Court directed that the examinations appeared/written by respondents 1 to 3 pursuant to the interim orders on that writ petition be treated as regular. In the said judgment, the learned Single Judge has directed respondents 4 to 7 to consider Exts.P16 to P16(b) representations which were marked as Exts.P17 and P17(b) in that writ petition submitted by respondents 1 to 3.
Sections 63(2)(iii) and 63(5) of the University Act, and Chapter XXIX of the Kerala University of Health Science First Statutes, 2013, which are relevant as far as the registration and cancellation of registration of a student who successfully graduated, read thus;
“63.Registered graduates. xxx xxx xxx
(2)A person shall not be qualified to have his name entered in the register of graduates, if he, -xxx xxx xxx
(iii)is convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude; Final. xxx xxx xxx
(5)The Chancellor may, on the recommendation of the Governing Council supported by a majority of not less than two-third of its members present at its meeting, such majority comprising not less than one-half of its members, remove the name of any person from the register of graduates for such period as the Chancellor thinks fit, if such person has been convicted by a court for any offence which, in the opinion of the Governing Council, is a serious offence involving moral turpitude”.
“Chapter XXIX -withdrawal or Cancellation of Degrees, Diplomas, Titles, etc.
Procedure.- If evidence is laid before the Governing Council to show that any person on whom a degree, title or other distinction has been conferred or to whom a diploma, license or certificate has been granted by the Senate, has been convicted of what in their opinion is an offence involving moral delinquency, the Governing Council may decide that the degree, diploma, title, license, certificate or other distinction be cancelled, and if the proposal is accepted by not less than two-thirds of the members present and is confirmed by the Chancellor, the degree, diploma, title, license, certificate or other distinction shall be cancelled accordingly Provided that before cancellation of the degree, diploma, title, license, Certificate, or other distinction of a person, the person affected shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case”.
As discernible from the pleadings and materials on record, the respondents 1 to 3 are facing the criminal case registered against them. They have already completed the course and were issued with the provisional degree certificates. In Pattakka Suresh Babu [2024 (1) KHC 55], the decision which was pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, a Division Bench of this Court in a matter wherein two life convicts in two different cases sought suspension of the execution of their sentence and to be released on bail by invoking Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C, for pursuing higher studies. Though the facts of Pattakka Suresh Babu [2024 (1) KHC 55] is not applicable to the facts of the present case in our hand, we extract paragraphs 7 to 9 of that judgement hereunder, which was relied by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 to make it clear as to how the Division Bench considered the educational right of even a life convict. The said paragraphs read thus;
“7.The right of a citizen to live with dignity forms a significant part of the right to life guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution of India. The idea behind this is that every person's life is precious, and irrespective of the circumstances, he should be given a sense of dignity to help him continue living. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [AIR 1978 SC 597], the Apex Court propounded a new dimension of Art.21, holding that the 'right to life or live' does not confine itself to mere physical existence but also includes the right to live with human dignity. This facet of the right under Art.21 has also been reiterated in recent times in the case of K. S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others [(2017) 10 SCC 1] where the court also read in the right of choice of an individual as part of his / her dignity. The restriction on liberty imposed by law on a convict does not take away his right to dignity protected by the Constitution. A convict is entitled to constitutional rights and essential human rights behind bars.
8.Extending the right to live with dignity to prisoners as well, the Apex Court from Charles Sobraj to Re Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, has consistently held that even though convicted, the prisoners are still humans, have the right to live with dignity and are entitled to basic human rights. In Charles Sobraj v. The Suptd, Central Jail, Thar [AIR 1978 SC 1514], it was held that the prisoners retain all rights enjoyed by free citizens except those lost necessarily as an incident of confinement. Rights enjoyed by prisoners under Art.14, Art.19 and Art.21, though limited, are not static and will rise to human heights when challenging situations arise. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [AIR 1980 SC 1579], the Apex Court, while dealing with the 'right to life', observed as follows; "By the term 'life' as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body or amputation of an arm or leg or the putting out of an eye or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world." Taking a cue from the above observations, in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors. [AIR 1981 SC 746], it was held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that what go along with the 'right to live with human dignity', such as, adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and facilities for reading, writing and expressing one - self in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy [AIR 2000 SC 2083], it was held that a prisoner is entitled to all his fundamental rights unless his liberty has been constitutionally curtailed. The Apex Court has emphasised that a prisoner, whether a convict, under trial or detenu, does not cease to be a human being and, while lodged in jail, he enjoys all his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, including the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution". In Re Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons [(2016) 3 SCC 700], while issuing guidelines on prison reforms, the Apex Court has observed that due importance needs to be given to the rights of prisoners and undertrials in various prisons across the country.
9.Education is the most potent mechanism for the advancement of an individual. International treaties specify the aims of education as promoting personal development and respect for human rights and freedoms, enabling individuals to participate effectively in a free society and fostering understanding, friendship, and tolerance. The right to education has been formally recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and has since been affirmed in global human rights treaties, including the 1960 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention Against Discrimination in Education and the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art.13(1) of which recognises 'the right of everyone to education'. In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka [AIR 1992 SC 1858], the Apex Court held that the right to education is the essence of the right to life and directly flow and interlinked with it, and life living with dignity can only be assured when there is a significant role of education. Later, the validity of this judgment was re - examined by a five judges Bench in J. P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1993 SC 2178] and held that: “Right to education means citizen has the right to call upon the State to provide the facilities of education to them according to the financial capacity". (Underline supplied)
With the risk of repetition, we may notice that respondents 1 to 3 are still accused in the criminal case. No disciplinary proceedings have been culminated against them. They have completed the course and were issued with provisional degree certificates. In such circumstances, we find no illegality in the direction of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment to issue course, conduct and transfer certificates to respondents 1 to 3. So also, the learned Single Judge has only directed forwarding of applications, if any, submitted by respondents 1 to 3 for registration with the 8th respondent by respondents 10 and 11 herein. Since the issue pertaining to the said registration is submitted as pending consideration in another writ petition, we are not entering into those aspects in this judgment.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no patent illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge which warrants interference by exercising appellate jurisdiction.
In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.