Kerala High Court Questions VC's Authority To Continue Suspension Of Kerala University's Registrar Despite Revocation By Syndicate

Justice T R Ravi orally questioned the authority of the VC in keeping the Registrar under suspension. "Which is the power you exercised for keeping him under suspension?" the judge said.

Counsel appearing for the VC submitted that he had acted in exercise of powers granted under the statue, pointing to Section 10(13) of the Kerala University Act.

The provision stipulates that if an emergency has arisen, the Vice Chancellor can exercise any power vested to the syndicate or academic council and in the next session report the action taken to the concerned authority. In the present instance, the suspension was reported to the syndicate in the next meeting on 6 July, 2025.

VC's counsel further urged that the matter should be heard in length since the interim relief sought for revocation of suspension tantamount to granting final relief itself.

The Counsel further submitted that Syndicate Meetings have to be convened 'legally' and “Just because syndicate members assemble and they take the decision on anything they feel…cannot be termed as the decision of the syndicate.” He added that the agenda of the meeting did not include the revocation of suspension, hence the resolution was invalid.

The Court however noted that the agenda of the meeting was regarding counter affidavit to be filed in WP(C) 24724/2025 (writ filed by the Registrar against suspension before single bench).

Thus, the Court orally remarked, “that agenda itself was regarding the suspension…it is regarding a counter affidavit to be filed before the Court against the challenge of suspension”. 

While the court did not pass any interim order, it posted the matter for August 6 for further hearing.

During the hearing today, Senior Counsel Elvin Peter PJ, appearing for the Registrar submitted that the VC exercised the power of the Syndicate when it was not in session and issued the order of suspension under Section 10(13) of the Kerala University Act. He pressed that only Syndicate is the appointing and disciplinary authority in case of Registrar.

Peter further submitted that even if the VC acts under Section 10(13), once the report is submitted– it is for the syndicate to decide what is the course of action to be followed.

It was further submitted that in the special meeting of the Syndicate, the suspension was revoked, which had further led to withdrawal of an earlier writ petition filed by the Registrar. This order of the Court, he said, has not been challenged by anybody and yet, the Vice Chancellor continues to treat the Registrar to be suspended.

At this stage the high court orally enquired about the power of the Syndicate to convene a special meeting, since there is no explicit provision for such special meeting. Peter clarified that it need not be a special meeting and it can be considered as an ordinary meeting.

The senior counsel said, “So far as the members of the syndicate are concerned, once the meeting of the syndicate is convened after the date of suspension, they are bound to pass orders on whether it should continue or not.”

It was also submitted that the chair can adjourn the meeting, only on four grounds, none of which fall under the condition put forth by the Vice Chancellor in the present matter, hence, the act of the Vice Chancellor cannot be considered to be an adjournment of the meeting.

It was further submitted that the VC was just an officer under the University and not an authority, and hence is bound to implement the decisions of the Syndicate.

“He (VC) cannot decide whether the decision of the syndicate was bad or not,” the Registrar's counsel added.

The Senior Counsel submitted that the Vice Chancellor cannot revoke a decision of the Syndicate, but can only go to the Chancellor for such revocation. He further submitted that the resolution for revocation of suspension was passed by a majority of the syndicate. “Whether it was bad or not can be considered by the Senate and not the Vice Chancellor,” he added. 

Background

The VC had accused the petitioner of procedural irregularities and mismanagement, leading to unrest on campus and placed him in suspension.

Following this, the Syndicate—being the competent authority under the Kerala University Act and First Statutes—held a meeting on 06.07.2025 and resolved to revoke the suspension. Based on this resolution, the Registrar was reinstated, and he formally took charge.

However, in what the petitioner terms as a "colourable exercise of power", the VC subsequently issued fresh orders asserting that the petitioner remained under suspension and directing university staff to refrain from forwarding any files to him or allowing him to enter the campus.

Case Title - Prof. Dr. K S Anilkumar v The University of Kerala and Ors.

Case No - WP(C) 28246/ 2025

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

Counsel for Respondent - Thomas Abraham (SC- Kerala University), M R Sabu, Aparna Rajan, Sreedhar Ravindran, Fathima Parveen PS.