‘Political activities like sit-ins, hunger strikes have no place in democracy’: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court said political activities such as sit-ins, hunger strikes, dharnas, and satyagraha have no place in a constitutional democracy, especially inside educational institutions. It said campuses exist to provide education, not serve political ambitions, and protests should not disrupt other students’ right to study.

The remark came while overturning permission given to 16 suspended students at Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit to sit semester exams. The students belonged to the CPI(M)’s student wing. They had protested for better infrastructure and academic facilities. They also held a street play allegedly insulting Vice Chancellor Ciza Thomas. The division bench said they had not shown exam eligibility and warned that students involved in such actions could be expelled or rusticated.

The ruling signals strict disciplinary enforcement. A separate Madhya Pradesh case shows a different outcome: its High Court quashed a student’s protest-related FIR to protect his career. Kerala’s warning means campus protests may bring severe penalties, depending on institutional rules.

A dharna is a sit-in protest, often held to demand action or change. A hunger strike uses refusal to eat as pressure. Satyagraha means pursuing a cause through peaceful resistance. All three are forms of protest, but they use different methods.

In the Kerala case, 16 students protested for better infrastructure and academic facilities. They also held a street play that allegedly insulted the vice-chancellor. Their protest created pressure by disrupting normal activities and attracting attention to their demands.

The Kerala High Court said dharnas, hunger strikes, and satyagraha have no place in academic institutions. It said participating students could face expulsion or rustication. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court later quashed a student’s protest-related FIR, showing that courts may treat individual cases differently.

Sixteen students at Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit were suspended after protesting for better infrastructure and academic facilities. This mattered because the suspension affected their attendance, leaving them unable to meet the university’s examination requirements.

The students were members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)’s student wing. In August, they also held a street play that allegedly insulted Vice Chancellor Ciza Thomas. They approached the High Court after losing attendance during their suspension and sought permission to sit semester examinations.

A single judge initially allowed them to take the examinations, subject to the case’s final outcome. The university appealed on October 30, and a division bench later set aside that permission. The bench said the students had not proved their eligibility and warned that bypassing academic rules could undermine discipline. It also said students joining dharnas, hunger strikes, or satyagraha could face expulsion or rustication.

The university suspended 16 students after they protested for better infrastructure and academic facilities. They also held a street play that allegedly insulted Vice Chancellor Ciza Thomas in August. Those actions were treated as political activity and disciplinary misconduct by the university.

Since the suspension kept them from attending classes, the students fell short of the attendance requirement for semester examinations. They approached a single judge, who temporarily allowed them to sit the exams while their case continued. The university appealed, arguing that examination access required proof of eligibility under its academic rules.

On Tuesday, the division bench overturned that permission because the students had not shown they met those requirements. It said allowing exams without satisfying them would weaken the university’s academic and disciplinary rules. Thus, the suspension did not directly ban examinations; it caused the attendance shortfall that blocked eligibility.

Students who join dharnas, hunger strikes, or satyagraha at an educational institution could face expulsion or rustication. The Kerala High Court said such political activities have no place in constitutional democracy, especially on campuses. It stressed that institutions exist to provide education, not political activity.

The court made these remarks while deciding the case of 16 suspended students at Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit. They protested for better infrastructure and academic facilities. They also held a street play allegedly insulting Vice Chancellor Ciza Thomas. The division bench denied examination access because they had not shown eligibility and attendance requirements remained unmet.

This does not mean every protest automatically results in punishment under the article. It shows that campus rules and disciplinary standards can determine whether students continue studying or sit examinations. The Kerala bench warned that participating students could be expelled or rusticated, while a separate Madhya Pradesh case protected a student from unnecessary criminal proceedings.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court treated the student’s case leniently by quashing the FIR against him. He had been accused of violating an order that prohibited unlawful gatherings during a protest. This sharply contrasted with the Kerala High Court’s stricter warning about political protests in educational institutions.

The student had been charge-sheeted for taking part in a protest against a case filed against members of the Adivasi community in June 2024. The court granted his plea on Monday, saying a “bright student” should not be unnecessarily dragged into criminal proceedings and have his career damaged.

The court also considered his academic record. He had scored distinctions in four of his five Class 12 subjects, according to The Indian Express. The ruling shows that the court focused on preventing disproportionate harm to the student, rather than allowing the criminal case to continue automatically.

Constitutional democracies protect peaceful expression, but that protection does not automatically override an institution’s academic and disciplinary rules. Authorities may maintain order, enforce attendance requirements, and protect other students’ access to education. Courts can review whether restrictions are connected to those purposes and applied fairly.

In Kerala, the High Court set aside an order allowing 16 suspended students to take semester exams. The students had protested for better infrastructure and academic facilities, and held a street play allegedly insulting the vice chancellor. The division bench said they had not shown examination eligibility, and warned that dharnas, hunger strikes, or satyagraha could lead to expulsion or rustication.

By contrast, the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a student’s protest-related FIR. It said a bright student should not be unnecessarily dragged through criminal proceedings. Together, the cases suggest a balance: institutions can enforce clear rules, while courts can prevent penalties that unfairly damage education or careers.