Kerala HC questions VC’s authority to continue Registrar’s suspension after Syndicate revocation

Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Monday orally questioned the authority of Kerala University’s Vice-Chancellor to continue the suspension of Registrar Prof Dr K S Anilkumar, even after the University Syndicate formally revoked the suspension through a resolution.

Justice T R Ravi posed the query during the hearing of a writ petition filed by the Registrar, seeking to quash multiple orders issued by the Vice-Chancellor under Section 10(13) of the Kerala University Act. These orders, the Registrar argued, prevented him from rejoining duty despite the Syndicate’s decision in his favour.

The suspension followed a controversy during an event in the Senate Hall attended by the Governor, where a portrait of Bharat Mata with a saffron flag had sparked a student clash. The Registrar had reportedly directed organisers to remove the portrait and subsequently cancelled the event as tensions escalated.

The Vice-Chancellor’s counsel defended the suspension, citing Section 10(13) of the Act, which allows the VC to act with the powers of the Syndicate or Academic Council during emergencies, provided the action is reported to the concerned body in the next meeting. The counsel stated that the suspension was duly reported in the Syndicate meeting held on July 6.

However, the High Court noted that the agenda of that Syndicate meeting included the preparation of a counter affidavit in the writ petition filed by the Registrar challenging his suspension. The court remarked that the issue of suspension was inherently tied to the agenda, suggesting that the Syndicate was well within its rights to act on the matter.

Senior counsel Elvin Peter PJ, representing the Registrar, argued that the Syndicate is the appointing and disciplinary authority in the case of the Registrar, and that the Vice-Chancellor had exceeded his powers. He added that once the Syndicate met after the suspension and revoked it, the VC was duty-bound to implement the resolution.

Peter further submitted that the Registrar was reinstated following the revocation and had even withdrawn a previous writ petition. Despite this, the Vice-Chancellor issued fresh orders asserting that the Registrar remained suspended and directed university staff not to cooperate with him or allow him entry to campus.

The Registrar’s counsel maintained that the Vice-Chancellor had no authority to override a Syndicate resolution and that such powers, if contested, lie with the Chancellor, not the VC. He also pointed out that the Syndicate’s decision was passed by a majority and has not been challenged legally.

Responding to concerns about the legality of the Syndicate meeting, Peter clarified that it was a regular meeting, not a special one, and that the VC's attempt to adjourn it lacked valid grounds.

“The Vice-Chancellor is an officer of the university, not a superior authority,” Peter said, adding, “He cannot decide whether a Syndicate resolution is good or bad. That power lies with the Senate or Chancellor.”

While the court did not pass any interim order on Monday, it posted the matter for further hearing on August 6.

The Registrar was suspended by the VC over alleged procedural lapses and mismanagement linked to the Senate Hall incident. On July 6, the University Syndicate, empowered under the Kerala University Act and First Statutes, resolved to revoke the suspension. The Registrar subsequently rejoined duty.

However, in what the Registrar’s petition terms a “colourable exercise of power”, the VC later issued fresh orders maintaining the suspension, effectively blocking the Registrar from performing his duties or accessing university premises.
(With LiveLaw inputs.)