Kerala HC sets aside single-judge order permitting suspended Sanskrit University students to write exams

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Tuesday set aside a single judge's interim order that had permitted 16 suspended students of the Sree Sankara University of Sanskrit at Kalady to appear for university examinations scheduled to begin on November 4 [Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v Archana PS & ors].

A Division Bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and Muralee Krishna S passed the ruling on an appeal filed by the university against the single-judge's October 30 interim order.

"The said interim order cannot be sustained in law... we find no reason to sustain the impugned order of the single judge. In the result, this writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the single judge's interim order. We make it clear the observations in this judgment touching on merits of the issue pending before single judge are made for limited purpose of the disposal of this appeal," the Court held today.

The case stems from a protest held by students at Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit on August 13, 2026, when the university's syndicate was holding a meeting.

The university alleged in their appeal that the protesting students had conducted a symbolic funeral of the Vice-Chancellor and later obstructed and assaulted her as she was leaving her office.

The incident led to the registration of two First Information Reports (FIRs) at the Kalady Police Station.

On September 1, the university suspended 16 students and initiated disciplinary proceedings against them.

According to the university, an enquiry committee that heard the students on September 29 and 30, recommended disciplinary action against them. However, the report could not be placed before the Syndicate for approval, until some procedural defects were corrected.

The students subsequently approached the High Court arguing that their continued suspension without a final decision in the disciplinary proceedings affected their studies and prevented them from attending classes.

They claimed that the protest was organised to raise concerns over in adequate facilities on campus and denied conducting any symbolic funeral of the Vice-Chancellor.

With university examinations scheduled to begin on November 4, the students sought permission to appear for them.

A single judge Bench of the Court on October 30 allowed them to provisionally appear for the exams. The single-judge directed the university to accept the suspended student's examination fees and permit them to appear for the examinations.

The single judge also clarified that this interim order would not affect the final outcome of their pending petition challenging the suspension or create any additional rights in their favour.

The university challenged this ruling before the High Court's Division Bench. It pointed out that the deadline for examination registration had expired on October 23 and that the students had not submitted their applications within the prescribed time

It also stated that six of the suspended students were pursuing doctoral research programmes and were not covered by the examination notification, while the remaining students did not meet the mandatory attendance requirement of 80 per cent or complete the prescribed internal assessment necessary to appear for the examinations.

The Division Bench today found force in these arguments. It noted that the single judge had permitted the suspended students to write the exam without even requiring that they submit an exam registration application or an application to condone exam shortages. The Division Bench ruled that the Court cannot order the university to carry out such action in violation of the regulations governing it.

It also noted that the relief granted in the interim order is virtually the final relief sought by the petitioners, which is impermissible.

Moreover, the Court also found that some of the petitioner-students were not covered by the exams scheduled on November 4, and that there was nothing to show that they were entitled to the relief of getting permission to write those exams. They did not make any strong case for interim relief, the Division Bench held.

It further noted that the interim order was passed without even giving the university's standing counsel to get instructions. This too affected the university's rights, the Division Bench held while ruling that the university was entitled to challenge the interim order by way of an intra-court appeal.

The Bench proceeded to allow the university's appeal to set aside the single-judge order, but clarified that its observations were limited to the appeal before it and not a final comment on the dispute pending before the single judge.

Senior Advocate TA Shaji, along with advocates PG Pramod and Nadiya KM, represented the students.

Advocate Silpa Sreekumar represented the University.

[Live Coverage]