Dharna, hunger strikes have no place in democracy: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court’s division bench set aside an earlier single-bench order that had allowed 16 suspended students to pay fees and take their semester exams. The ruling matters because exam access depends on university regulations, including attendance and other eligibility requirements.

The students, who belonged to the SFI, had been suspended after a protest and a street play allegedly insulting Vice Chancellor Ciza Thomas. They sought permission despite not meeting mandatory attendance requirements. The single bench had allowed them to write exams without creating a final right to continue the case.

The division bench found that the students had provided no evidence showing exam eligibility. It also said courts cannot require authorities to act against statutory or regulatory rules. The students therefore lost the temporary permission to sit for the semester exams, while the university’s disciplinary action remained supported by the ruling.

A dharna is a protest in which people sit at a location, often to pressure an authority. A hunger strike is a protester’s refusal to eat for a cause. Satyagraha is a form of nonviolent resistance associated with pursuing change through truth, moral pressure, and peaceful action. These methods can be political or social protests.

The case involved students who protested for better infrastructure and academic facilities at Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit. Their agitation also included a street play that allegedly insulted Vice Chancellor Ciza Thomas. The students were suspended, and the dispute later reached the Kerala High Court.

The division bench quoted earlier High Court observations that dharnas, hunger strikes, and Satyagraha have no place in constitutional democracy, especially in academic institutions. It said educational institutions are meant to impart education, not become arenas for political activity. The ruling linked such conduct to possible expulsion or rustication.

The dispute involved 16 suspended students of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit in Ernakulam district. They belonged to the CPI(M) student wing SFI and had sought permission to appear for their semester exams after being suspended. The number is important because the single-bench order had covered this specific group.

The article states that the students did not meet the university’s mandatory attendance requirements. The division bench also noted that the writ petition contained no pleadings or supporting material about minimum attendance, passing internal exams, or applications seeking condonation of attendance shortages. These were matters governed by university regulations.

The court therefore treated exam eligibility as unproved, rather than assuming that paying fees was enough. The university appealed the single-bench directive on October 30. The division bench said the students had to satisfy the institution’s rules before receiving permission to sit for the exams.

The immediate academic consequence is that the 16 students cannot rely on the earlier court permission to write their semester exams. The division bench held that exam access cannot be granted when students have not shown that they satisfy attendance and other regulatory conditions. Their suspension therefore remains relevant to their ability to participate in examinations.

The court specifically referred to missing material on minimum attendance, internal examinations, and applications for condonation of attendance shortages. It also said that allowing students to write exams without meeting those requirements would undermine both legal standards and the university’s disciplinary steps. Paying examination fees did not cure the eligibility problem.

The article does not state the students’ final academic outcome, such as expulsion, rustication, or loss of a semester. It does state that consequences following suspension, including ineligibility to sit for examinations, must be upheld according to institutional rules. Any further outcome would depend on those rules and the pending proceedings.

The division bench said the single bench had erred by granting exam permission without evidence that the suspended students were eligible. The students had not shown compliance with mandatory requirements, especially attendance. The court treated this missing evidence as central to the appeal, not as a minor procedural gap.

The bench also pointed to the absence of pleadings or supporting material about minimum attendance, passing internal exams, and applications for condonation of attendance shortages. Under the court’s reasoning, paying fees could not replace these requirements. Nor could a temporary order override the university’s regulations while the writ petition was still pending.

The judges relied on Supreme Court directions stating that courts cannot grant relief requiring an authority to violate regulations or statutory requirements. They concluded that allowing the exams would weaken both legal standards and disciplinary action. The university’s appeal against the October 30 directive therefore succeeded, and the single-bench order was set aside.

Statutory regulations are binding rules created under legal authority. Universities must apply them consistently, including rules about attendance, examinations, and disciplinary consequences. If a court ordered a university to ignore those rules without a lawful basis, it would replace the governing framework with an individual exception.

In this case, the Kerala High Court said the students had not shown that they met the requirements for taking their exams. The division bench noted missing material about minimum attendance, internal exams, and applications for condonation. It therefore refused to require the university to admit them to examinations contrary to its regulations.

The court relied on Supreme Court directives against granting relief that makes an authority act unlawfully. This principle protects the rule of law and institutional consistency. It does not mean courts can never review university decisions. It means any remedy must remain within the law and the institution’s valid regulatory framework.

A constitutional democracy is a system in which public power is limited by a constitution, laws, and rights. People may express views and challenge authorities, but those freedoms operate within legal boundaries. Institutions also have duties to protect order, equal treatment, and other people’s ability to receive education.

The case shows this balance through the university’s response to student agitation. The students demanded better infrastructure and academic facilities, but they were suspended after a protest and a street play allegedly insulting the Vice Chancellor. The court said dharnas, hunger strikes, and Satyagraha have no place in academic institutions, and that political parties cannot hold education hostage.

The ruling’s practical message is that protest does not automatically cancel attendance, examination, or discipline rules. The division bench said academic discipline and institutional regulations must be maintained. At the same time, the article does not describe a broader ruling defining all lawful student protest. Its decision focused on this suspension and the missing evidence of exam eligibility.