Bharat Mata Portrait Row: Kerala University Registrar Withdraws Plea Before High Court Against Suspension After Being Reinstated

Kerala University Registrar, Prof. Dr. K.S. Anil Kumar, on Monday (July 7) withdrew a plea before the High Court, challenging his suspension by the varsity's Vice Chancellor in view of his reinstatement by the Syndicate of the University, in connection with the Bharat Mata portrait row.

When the matter came up for consideration, before Justice DK Singh, counsel for the Registrar submitted before the High Court that a withdrawal petition has been filed in light of the reinstatement of the Registrar by the Syndicate of the University.

The matter pertains to a clash among students that had occurred during an event. The Registrar's plea claimed that he was informed that the organisers of the event had installed religious emblems in the Senate Hall.

After the organisers were requested to remove the same, they refused to do so, leading to an altercation between different Students' Unions.

It is claimed that when the petitioner and the police officers went to the Senate Hall, they found a "photograph of a lady holding a saffron flag", and they were under the impression that this was a photograph of a Hindu goddess.

To avoid a clash, he had asked the organisers to remove the same. In view of the fact that the situation was becoming dire, the Registrar had ordered the cancellation of the event, it is stated.

Justice D.K. Singh orally observed that when such a decision to reinstate the Registrar was made by the Syndicate, the correctness of the decision has to be decided by the appropriate authority.

Thus, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the Court.

Background

On June 13, the Registrar received a request from the Secretary of the Sree Padmanabha Seva Samiti to use the Senate Hall of the University to conduct a seminar in connection with the 50th year of the Declaration of Emergency on 25.06.2025. Thereafter, permission to conduct the programme was given. The petitioner's plea claims that he had informed the Secretary of the Samiti that it should strictly comply with the Rules and Regulations for the Allotment of Senate Hall.

According to the petitioner, on the day of the function, the Security Officer of the University informed the petitioner that the organisers of the event had installed religious emblems in the Senate Hall. Thereafter, the petitioner states, the Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the University conducted an inspection and requested the organisers to remove the religious symbols.

The said request was not complied with, and hence, a report stating that the programme was being conducted in violation of the Rules. Along with the report, a draft letter for cancellation of the event was also submitted to the petitioner, it is stated.

Later, the petitioner stated, the Security Officer, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the Circle Inspector of Police, and the Sub Inspector of Cantonment Police Station, Trivandrum rushed to the office of the petitioner and informed the petitioner that the students belonging to different Students Union were engaged in an altercation.

The petitioner stated that there was a chance of violent clashes and there was a need to take remedial measures. Therefore, the petitioner and the police officers went to the Senate Hall wherein there was a photograph of a lady holding a saffron flag placed at the centre of the stage on a very prominent spot. There were flower garlands on the photo and on the table on which it was placed.

According to the writ petition, the petitioner and the Security Officer were under the impression that this was a photograph of a Hindu goddess. In order to avoid a clash and to broker peace among the students, the petitioner requested the organisers to remove the said photograph. While the organisers were contemplating on whether or not to remove the same, the petitioner received a call from the Governor's office and the entire situation was appraised, it is stated.

In the meantime, the situation in the Senate Hall became very dire, and there was a physical clash between the students. Thereupon, the petitioner passed an order to cancel the permission given to organise the event. However, as per the report of the PRO, the organisers refused to accept the said cancellation order and there were violent clashes in the Hall. According to the petitioner, while all this happened, the Governor had not reached the venue.

Later, according to the petitioner, the Governor reached the Hall after the police officers had intervened and calmed down the situation. At this time, the photographs were not removed by the organisers and the programme was carried out with the same.

The VC called for a report from the petitioner regarding the happenings of the day and a report was submitted by the petitioner on the very next day itself. A week later, the VC issued a suspension order.

As per the order, the 4th respondent has stated that it found it necessary to suspend the petitioner after considering the reports submitted by the petitioner Registrar, the Security Officer, the PRO, and the Section Officer. Moreover, order also stated that the petitioner decided to cancel the event after the Governor arrived at the venue.

According to the petitioner, this was a wrong appreciation of actual facts since he contended the cancelation was issued while the Governor was not at the venue. The petitioner has also stated that the 4th respondent VC was not in station when the issue happened and Exhibit P11 suspension order was issued without appreciating the relevant facts.

As per the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the Syndicate of the University is the appointing and disciplinary authority, which has the power to suspend the Registrar of the University. The petitioner stated that the Registrar is not an employee but an officer of the University as per Section 12 of the Kerala University Act, 1974. Therefore, the VC who is granted to initiate disciplinary proceedings against employees alone cannot suspend the Registrar.

According to the petitioner, the VC was not in station when the issue happened and the suspension order was issued without appreciating the relevant facts. In the writ petition, the suspension order of the Vice-Chancellor was challenged for being illegal, arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and vitiated by malafides. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the order is infected by the abuse of power and is therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Case No: WP(C) No. 24724 of 2025

Case Title: Prof. Dr. K.S. Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 390

Counsel for the petitioner: Elvin Peter P.J. (Sr.), K.R.Ganesh, Adarsh Babu C.S., Ahsana E., Ashik J. Varghese

Counsel for the respondents: Thomas Abraham - Standing Counsel, University of Kerala, George Poonthottam (Sr.), Special Government Pleader V. Manu.

Click To Read/Download Judgment