16 Sanskrit University Students Move Supreme Court Over Exam Ban

New Delhi : The right to pursue education amid ongoing disciplinary proceedings has emerged as the central issue in a legal dispute involving 16 students of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady. The students have approached the Supreme Court challenging a Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment that overturned an interim order allowing them to sit for their semester examinations scheduled to begin on November 4, 2026.

The petitioners, who are affiliated with the Students Federation of India (SFI), have sought restoration of the interim relief granted by a Single Judge on October 30. They have requested permission to appear provisionally in the examinations, subject to the final decision in their pending writ petition challenging their suspension. They have also sought permission to take the remaining examination papers and requested special examinations for any papers missed before the Supreme Court passes its order.

The students argue that the High Court's decision, delivered just a day before the examinations, could result in the loss of an entire academic semester, causing consequences that may not be reversible through subsequent legal proceedings.

Suspension Following Campus Protest

The 16 petitioners are enrolled in various programmes, including MSW, MFA, MA, the Four-Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUGP) and PhD courses. The university suspended them on September 1, 2026, pending an inquiry into incidents allegedly connected with a student protest held on the campus on August 13.

Following a Syndicate decision dated August 22, the university established an inquiry committee to investigate the matter. The suspended students were also prohibited from entering the campus, except on designated dates when they were required to participate in the inquiry proceedings.

On October 12, the students approached the Kerala High Court, questioning the continuation of their suspension and seeking several forms of relief, including provisional acceptance of their examination applications.

With the examinations approaching and the disciplinary inquiry still pending, they subsequently filed an interim application seeking permission to appear for the papers.

On October 30, a Single Judge allowed the students to participate in the examinations commencing November 4, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. The order specifically clarified that appearing in the examinations would not establish any right or create any equity in their favour.

However, the university challenged this interim direction before a Division Bench of the High Court.

Division Bench Overturns Single Judge's Order

During the appeal, the university maintained that the students did not fulfil the minimum attendance requirements and had not cleared the prescribed internal assessments. It further submitted that the students had failed to complete the examination registration formalities within the stipulated deadline.

The university also argued that the Single Judge had granted substantially the same relief sought in the main writ petition at the interim stage itself, despite the absence of adequate pleadings and supporting material establishing the students' eligibility to take the examinations.

Accepting the university's submissions, the Division Bench set aside the interim order on November 3.

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

Students Challenge Attendance Objections

In their appeal before the Supreme Court, the students have argued that the High Court failed to consider an important aspect of the dispute: any deficiency in their attendance was a direct result of the university's suspension order, which prevented them from attending classes.

According to the petitioners, the university cannot benefit from circumstances that arose because of its own decision to suspend them.

They have also submitted that the objections concerning attendance and internal assessments were introduced for the first time during the writ appeal. Consequently, they claim they were not given an opportunity to respond to these arguments before the Single Judge.

The students have further challenged the Division Bench's assessment that the interim relief granted by the Single Judge was equivalent to the final relief sought in the original writ petition.

They maintain that their principal demand in the writ petition is the cancellation of the suspension order, while permission to appear for examinations was sought only as a temporary measure, subject to the final adjudication of the case.

The petitioners contend that the High Court's decision has effectively deprived them of an academic opportunity at the interim stage itself, as the examinations are likely to conclude before the main writ petition is finally heard.

Dispute Also Refers to Two 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 Kalady Police on the night of the incident. According to the petitioners, this FIR did not contain allegations relating to 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 petitioners allege that this subsequent FIR introduced accusations of a mock cremation and physical assault on the Vice Chancellor, invoking non-bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

They have further argued that suspension pending an inquiry cannot be allowed to function as a punishment before any finding of guilt has been established.

The petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Subhash Chandran.

Academic Future at the Centre of the Legal Dispute

The case has brought the students' academic interests into direct conflict with the university's disciplinary and examination regulations. While the university has questioned their eligibility on grounds of attendance, internal assessment and examination registration, the students maintain that their inability to fulfil certain academic requirements arose from the suspension imposed by the institution itself.

With the examinations already scheduled to commence on November 4, the Supreme Court's consideration of their request for interim relief could prove crucial to the students' immediate academic future. The broader dispute over the validity of their suspension, however, remains pending before the Kerala High Court.