HC summons Kerala University VC in contempt plea over Registrar’s reinstatement

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday directed Kerala University Vice Chancellor Dr Mohan Kunnummel to appear in person on March 11 in a contempt petition alleging failure to implement the University Syndicate's decision reinstating Prof Dr K S Anil Kumar as Registrar.

The Registrar was suspended by the Vice Chancellor in July 2025 after he cancelled a seminar scheduled to be attended by the Governor, amid clashes between student unions over the display of a 'Bharat Mata' portrait with a saffron flag.

Following the suspension, a Syndicate meeting was convened and the body resolved to revoke the suspension and reinstate the Registrar. However, despite the decision, the VC issued fresh directions stating that the Registrar would continue to remain under suspension.

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan observed that the High Court's earlier judgment had clearly mandated that decisions taken by the Syndicate would be binding on the Vice Chancellor, subject to statutory powers. The court noted that the VC had prima facie failed to comply with the direction.

"The direction to the VC in the judgment is that the decision taken by the Syndicate will necessarily be binding on the Vice Chancellor, subject to the powers of the Statute. It is an admitted fact that the Syndicate decided to revoke the suspension and reinstate the Registrar," the court observed.

The VC contended that the alleged violation pertained only to the non-convening of the Syndicate meeting and submitted that the meeting had since been convened. His counsel sought time to file an objection affidavit.

The court declined the request, noting that the contempt petition has been pending since October 2025 and no affidavit had been filed so far.

Counsel for the VC further submitted that the VC was not agreeable to implementing the Syndicate's decision, claiming it violated provisions of the Kerala University Act. Meanwhile, counsel for Prof Anil Kumar informed the court that the matter had been placed before the Chancellor and that a decision was awaited.

The court, however, observed that its judgment cannot be kept in abeyance by either the Vice-Chancellor or the Chancellor.

A perusal of the Syndicate minutes showed that the VC had objected to the decision itself, the court noted, remarking that such conduct prima facie amounted to contempt of court.

"I am of the prima facie opinion that the judgment of the High Court cannot be kept in abeyance by either the Vice Chancellor or the Chancellor… Immediate action needs to be taken as per the direction of the court," the judge said.

Background:
The Registrar had approached the High Court challenging his continued suspension despite its formal revocation by the Syndicate. He also sought to quash subsequent orders issued by the VC preventing him from rejoining duty.

The High Court had earlier directed the VC to convene a Syndicate meeting through the Registrar-in-Charge to decide whether the suspension should continue. When the meeting was not convened, Syndicate members approached the court again. The petition was later disposed of after it was informed that the meeting was scheduled for November 1, 2025.

At the November 1 meeting, the Syndicate revoked the suspension. However, the VC subsequently placed the matter before the Chancellor for concurrence instead of implementing the decision.
(With LiveLaw inputs)