Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan asked the university to reconsider its position, pointing to the academic consequences of the suspension and the students’ inability to sit examinations. The court posted their petition challenging the disciplinary action for further consideration on Friday, November 13.
The judge made clear that questioning the length of the suspension did not amount to approving the students’ alleged conduct during the protest against Vice-Chancellor Ciza Thomas. However, he asked whether the period already spent under suspension was insufficient, even assuming misconduct had occurred.
The court urged the university to use its discretion to resolve the dispute rather than prolong the students’ exclusion. Its observations were made during the hearing and did not constitute a final ruling setting aside the suspension orders.
The students have challenged the university’s September 1 decision to suspend them pending a disciplinary enquiry into events on August 13. Their petition argues that the continuing restrictions have disrupted their studies and prevented them from attending classes while the proceedings remain unresolved.
The dispute centres partly on the university’s demand for written apologies as a condition for withdrawing the suspensions. The students declined that proposal, leaving their academic status and examination prospects dependent on further decisions by the institution and the courts.
The university alleges that the protest included a mock funeral of the Vice-Chancellor, an attempt to manhandle her and efforts to damage her vehicle. The students dispute that account, maintaining that their demonstration concerned defective stage lighting and wider shortcomings in campus facilities.
The allegations have also resulted in two cases registered at Kalady police station. The High Court’s earlier appellate proceedings acknowledged that the incidents were under investigation and refrained from deciding the competing factual claims.
The students say their protest highlighted an 18-point charter of demands, including adequate teaching staff and basic amenities across departments. The disciplinary controversy has consequently developed into a dispute over whether continued exclusion from academic activities is justified before the enquiry reaches a conclusion.
The university Syndicate decided on August 22 to suspend the students pending disciplinary action, citing the need to preserve the academic atmosphere and ensure orderly administration. Suspension orders followed on September 1, alongside the constitution of a committee to examine the allegations.
The enquiry committee held hearings on September 29 and 30. Questions over procedural deficiencies subsequently prevented its findings from being placed before the Syndicate for consideration, leaving the students subject to restrictions while the disciplinary process remained unfinished.
Their immediate concern became examinations scheduled to begin on November 4. On October 30, a Single Judge permitted them provisionally to pay examination fees and sit the papers, subject to the outcome of their pending challenge to the suspension.
The university appealed, and a Division Bench comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. overturned that interim relief on November 3. It found that the students had not adequately pleaded their eligibility under the applicable rules governing attendance and internal assessment.
The appellate court held that an interim direction could not require the university to disregard its examination regulations. Its ruling addressed the provisional examination permission rather than finally determining whether the underlying suspension was lawful.
(The article ‘Court questions varsity rigidity over student suspensions’ appeared first on Free Press Journal.)
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
