16 suspended SFI students of Kalady Sanskrit University move SC after High Court bars them from exams

New Delhi: Sixteen students of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, have approached the Supreme Court challenging a Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment that overturned an interim order allowing them to appear for semester examinations beginning November 4.

The students, who are members of the Students Federation of India (SFI), have sought an interim direction restoring the order passed by a Single Judge on October 30. The order had permitted them to write the examinations, subject to the final outcome of their petition challenging their suspension from the university.

They have also requested permission to provisionally appear for the remaining papers and sought special examinations for any papers they may miss before the Supreme Court passes its order. The petitioners argue that the High Court's decision, delivered on the eve of the examinations, would result in the loss of an entire academic semester.

The 16 students, pursuing MSW, MFA, MA, Four-Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUGP) and PhD courses, were suspended by the university on September 1, 2026, pending an inquiry into incidents allegedly connected to a student protest on the campus on August 13.

The university had constituted an inquiry committee following a Syndicate decision on August 22. The suspended students were also prohibited from entering the campus, except on specified dates to attend the inquiry proceedings.

The students approached the Kerala High Court on October 12, challenging their prolonged suspension and seeking, among other reliefs, provisional acceptance of their examination applications.

With the disciplinary inquiry still inconclusive and the examinations approaching, they filed an interim application. On October 30, the Single Judge allowed them to appear for the examinations from November 4, clarifying that this would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition and would not create any right or equity in their favour.

The university subsequently challenged the interim order before a Division Bench.

High Court sets aside interim relief

Before the Division Bench, the university argued that the students did not meet the minimum attendance requirements or the prescribed internal assessment criteria. It also contended that they had failed to complete the examination registration process within the stipulated deadline.

The university further argued that the Single Judge had effectively granted the main relief sought in the writ petition at the interim stage, without sufficient pleadings or supporting material to establish the students' eligibility to appear for the examinations.

Accepting these arguments, the Division Bench set aside the interim order on November 3.

The High Court observed that there was a "total lack of pleadings" regarding the students' entitlement to appear for the examinations under the applicable regulations governing minimum attendance and internal assessment.

Students say suspension caused attendance shortfall

In their Supreme Court petition, the students argue that the High Court failed to consider that any shortage in attendance was a direct consequence of the university's own suspension order, which prevented them from attending classes.

They contend that the university cannot take advantage of a situation created by its own actions.

The petition also states that the objections concerning attendance and internal assessment were raised for the first time during the writ appeal, denying the students an opportunity to respond to these arguments before the Single Judge.

The students further argue that the Division Bench wrongly treated the interim relief granted by the Single Judge as equivalent to the final relief sought in the original petition.

According to them, the primary relief sought in the writ petition is the quashing of the suspension order, while permission to appear for the examinations was only a provisional measure subject to the final outcome of the case.

They contend that the High Court's decision has effectively denied them an academic opportunity at the interim stage, as the examinations would have concluded by the time the original petition is taken up for final hearing.

Petition raises questions over FIRs

The Supreme Court petition also refers to two FIRs registered in connection with the August 13 incident at the university.

The first FIR was registered suo motu by the Kalady Police on the night of the incident. According to the petitioners, it did not contain allegations of a mock cremation or physical assault on the Vice-Chancellor.

A second FIR was registered on August 16, following a complaint submitted by the Vice-Chancellor to the State Police Chief.

The students allege that this FIR introduced allegations of a mock cremation and physical assault on the Vice-Chancellor, invoking non-bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

They maintain that a suspension imposed pending an inquiry cannot be allowed to operate as a punishment before any finding of guilt.