Kerala High Court: In a writ petition revolving around the authority of the Vice Chancellor (‘VC’) to invoke Section 10(13) of the Kerala University Act, 1974 (‘Act’), and issue a Memo of Charges against the Registrar of the University in regard to the ‘Bharat Mata Portrait Row’, a Single Judge Bench of P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J., while allowing the petition, held that the invocation of Section 10(13) of the Act to issue such a memo was without authority, particularly in the absence of any emergency. Thus, the Court stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned memo until further orders, directing the VC to explain the circumstances under which such powers were exercised.
The VC of the University of Kerala suspended the Registrar in July 2025 after the latter cancelled a seminar scheduled to be attended by the Governor. The decision came against the backdrop of clashes between rival Students’ Unions over the display of a ‘Bharat Mata’ portrait featuring a saffron flag, which was perceived by some as depicting a Hindu goddess. Holding the Registrar accountable for alleged mismanagement, the VC served the Registrar with a Memo of Charges under Section 10(13) of the Act which was challenged in the present writ petition.
The Court noted that the appointing authority of the Registrar is the Syndicate, and that, as per Section 10(13) of the Act, the VC may only exercise powers of the Syndicate or the Academic Council in cases of emergency when the Syndicate is not in session, and any such action must be reported to the Syndicate or Academic Council at its next session. The Court further noted that the Memo of Charges issued did not disclose any emergency warranting the exercise of such powers and that the Memo was not placed in the next Syndicate meeting which was held on 24-12-2025, which made the situation more doubtful.
Accordingly, the Court observed that prima facie, the memo was issued by the VC without any authority, and therefore, all further proceedings based on it must be stayed. The Court also directed that the VC must justify why Section 10(13) of the Act was invoked in this situation, treating the issuance of charges as an emergency situation.
[K.S. Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala, WP(C) No. 737 of 2026, decided on 12-1-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: M/S P. Ramakrishnan, Preethi Ramakrishnan, Pratap Abraham Varghese, Manojkumar G., Ashok Menon, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Government Pleader, Thomas Abraham, Standing Counsel.