KTU Syndicate Meeting Can't Be Continued After Vice-Chancellor Calls It Off, Will Create 'Ridiculous Situations': Kerala High Court

Justice T R Ravi passed the order in two writ petitions filed by two Syndicate members challenging the annulment of decisions by the Vice Chancellor which were taken at the 63rd Syndicate meeting of KTU after the VC had declared the meeting as closed.  

Upholding the annulment of decisions by the VC the court said:

"A certain amount of discretion and play in the joints have to be conceded to the Vice Chancellor. When the Vice Chancellor calls off a meeting due to disruption, it is not for this Court to conduct an enquiry into what happened or might have happened during the meeting, which can be said to justify or not justify the action of calling off the meeting, as if sitting in appeal over the said action. The members of the Syndicate had the option to take up the matter with the Chancellor, if they are aggrieved by the conduct of the Vice Chancellor. If it is to be held that the members can convene meeting by themselves, it would mean that in a case like this, there can be a possibility of the three groups of five members each, can all convene different meetings by themselves, satisfying the quorum for the meeting, and decide as they like, on the so called reason of “absence of the Vice Chancellor”. This would only create ridiculous situations"

"I do not find anything illegal in the order of the Vice Chancellor annulling the decisions taken at the meeting held by the members of the Syndicate, after the meeting was called off, since the said meeting cannot be treated as a meeting of the Syndicate," the court added. 

As per the facts, the 63rd Syndicate meeting was convened by the Vice Chancellor on January 16 this year. When members sought to include a disciplinary matter that was not part of the circulated agenda, the VC refused and abruptly declared the meeting closed without transacting any business.

A majority of members objected and, after electing one among them as Chairperson, continued the meeting in the VC's absence, passing several resolutions including matters relating to staff reappointments.

The Vice-Chancellor subsequently annulled these decisions, leading to petitions before the High Court by Syndicate members. They argued that under the University's First Statutes, members had the authority to continue the meeting by electing a presiding officer when the VC was absent.

The high court examined the provisions of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, and the University's First Statutes (issued in vernacular Malayalam).

The Court noted that only the vice Chancellor and Registrar can validly convene a Syndicate meeting. Section 28 of the Act requires the VC to fix the date and the Registrar to convene it.

The Court noted that a meeting cannot be convened on the mere fact that the requirement quorum is satisfied. “To hold that such a meeting should be treated as a properly convened meeting can create havoc.” it was observed.

The petitioners relied on Section 10(2) and emphasised on the words “in absence of the Vice Chancellor”.

It was argued that once the Vice Chancellor left after calling off the meeting, it was a situation of “absence of the Vice-Chancellor” and the remaining members were free to continue the meeting as if it was the meeting earlier convened.

The court however observed that the situation at hand was not a case of absence of the Vice Chancellor.

"Firstly, it is not a case where there was absence of the Vice Chancellor. As already observed, this can lead to absurdities," the court said. 

“Even if the Vice Chancellor was in his office, a meeting can be held in another room by 5 members of the Syndicate and call it as a Syndicate meeting, which is not what is contemplated by law. So also, even if a meeting is completed and all the business is transacted and wound up, five persons can still continue with another meeting and intermeddle with the decisions already taken earlier. An interpretation of the above said Statute in the manner suggested by the petitioners, will only lead to serious mischief,” it said. 

Referring to case laws, the high court said that in case of statutory meetings, the person who convenes the meeting had power to call off the meeting even before it commenced or to call off a meeting which had already commenced, in certain situations.

"Hence, such a power has to be conceded in favour of the Vice Chancellor in the case on hand," the court said. 

The Court further stressed that disputes over the VC's refusal to transact business must be resolved through the Chancellor, who has supervisory powers, rather than by unilateral action of Syndicate members.

The Court also reiterated earlier judicial directions that all university statutes must be published with an authoritative English translation under Article 348(3) of the Constitution. The Court lamented that despite repeated reminders over the decades, KTU's First Statutes (2020) remain available only in Malayalam, making it difficult for courts and outsiders to rely on them as authoritative texts.

“ It is all the more important that an English translation as provided in Article 348 (3) of the Constitution is available, in cases where the legislations are regarding Universities which take care of higher education, and when the State is aiming to become a global education hub. Should not the students coming from all over India and all over the World have access to the law relating the University where they wish to pursue their higher education or should we still remain as “Koopa mandookam” (translated as frog in a well)” the Court observed.

The Court noted that it is hopeful that the officers of the Universities function in unison to ensure the purpose for which the Universities are formed are furthered and is not "jeopardised by their narrow mindedness". 

Dismissing one petition, and two prayers in the second writ petition the high court directed KTU's VC to direct the Registrar to convene a meeting of the Syndicate at the earliest.

“The Vice Chancellor is reminded that it is not always necessary to adjourn meetings when requests are made to add items to the agenda. It is well within the powers of the Chairman of a meeting to add additional items in the agenda which may become necessary and to discuss on the same and if necessary, postpone the decision to another day,” it concluded. 

Case Title: Dr Vinodkumar Jacob v The Vice Chancellor and Anr and Connected Matter

Case No : WP(C) 3197/ 2025 and connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 538

Counsel for Petitioners: P Ravindran (Sr.), Aparna Rajan, M R Sabu, Lakshmi Ramadas, Sreedhar Ravindran, T Rajasekharan Nair

Counsel for Respondent: A J Varghese (Sr.GP), M A Vaheeda Babu, Babu Karukapadath, Arya Raghunath, Karukapadath Wazim Babu, P Lakshmi, Aysha E M, Hashim K M, Abuasil A K, Haniya Nafiza V S, M I Insaf Mooppan, Rishi Vincent, P K Abdul Rahiman, Manu Krishna S K, K R Ganesh, Elvin Peter P J (Sr.), V Manu (Spl. GP to AG)

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment