A law student awaiting enrolment after completing his LL.B course has approached the Kerala High Court challenging the restrictions under the High Court's revised internship policy [Austin Sunny v High Court of Kerala & ors].
The High Court heard the plea on Wednesday and directed its authorities to issue a temporary entry pass to the student, one Austin Suney, who was denied permission to attend court proceedings as an intern.
As per the revised internship policy, only students who are in the last two years of their law courses would be allowed to undertake internships at the High Court.
This restriction raised concerns over whether students who had completed their courses and were awaiting examination results or enrolment as advocates could continue interning with individual practising lawyers and attend court proceedings.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan granted interim relief to the petitioner, directing authorities to issue a temporary entry pass to him subject to compliance with the internship policy and a written assurance from the advocate confirming that the student is interning under him.
The Court, however, observed that the question of whether the internship policy applies to students who do not meet its eligibility criteria could be decided later.
"After hearing both sides, I think an interim order can be passed as far as the petitioner alone is concerned. The larger issue can be decided later," the Court added.
It also directed the petitioner to add the High Court Advocates' Association as an additional respondent and asked the respondents to file counter affidavits.
Suney, a student of Bharat Mata School of Legal Studies at Aluva, completed his final semester examinations on September 16, 2026. He is currently awaiting his results and has six supplementary examinations pending.
He is currently awaiting his results and has six supplementary examinations pending.
He joined law firm Ninan & Mathew Advocates for an internship; however, when he approached the High Court authorities for an entry pass for attending court proceedings, he was informed that only students currently studying in the final year were eligible.
Despite producing a certificate from his college confirming his student status, he was denied the entry pass without any written reasons.
He thus challenged the revised policy, arguing that exclusion of students awaiting results or enrolment defeated the policy's objective of providing practical legal training to law students and added that such restriction was violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Senior counsel Santhosh Mathew assisted by advocates Shinto Mathew Abraham, Veena Raveendran, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Leah Rachel Ninan, Mathew Nevin Thomas, Karthik Rajagopal, Kurian Antony Mathew, Aparnna S, Noel Ninan Ninan, Adeen Nazar, Rohan Mathew and Saira Susan Jojoe appeared for the petitioner.
Senior counsel BG Harindranath along with standing counsel S Vishnu appeared for the High Court's administrative side.
[Read Order]