Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1941
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
D. K. SINGH, J.
Acel Joe Varghese, S/o George Joseph - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) No. 23121 of 2025
Decided on : 02-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SMT.SNEHA ROSE, SMT.P.S.ARUNA, SRI.D.SREEKUMAR (KALAMASSERY)
For the Respondent: SHRI.BINNY THOMAS, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SR.), PARVATHY KOTTOL-GP
Judicial leniency in academic attendance requirements due to prior misconduct is permissible under specific circumstances, though misconduct remains unequivocally condemned.
Headnote:(A) UGC’s Anti-Ragging Regulations - The Court addressed the implications of suspension due to ragging activities, emphasizing the need to not condone misconduct while ensuring academic continuity. (Paras 1, 3, 10, 11, 12)
(B) Judicial precedent - The Court noted that although a past judgment permitting attendance leniency applied to postgraduate students, similar reasoning would be considered for undergraduates in this context, without establishing a binding precedent. (Paras 6, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were second-year MBBS students at a government medical college, suspended for three months due to involvement in ragging, and were at risk of not meeting attendance requirements for upcoming examinations due to their suspension.
Findings of Court:
The petitioners were directed to pay for extra classes to ensure attendance eligibility for exams, with a warning against future misconduct.
Issues: The main issues included the appropriateness of extra classes as a remedy for attendance shortfall and the applicability of prior judgments related to postgraduate students to undergraduates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that while it does not condone student misconduct, ensuring academic opportunity through conditional leniency in attendance was justified by prior judgments, but clarified this would not set a precedent for future cases.
Result: Writ petition disposed of as above.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ragging incidents and college disciplinary actions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against extra classes for attendance. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's stance on misconduct and its implications. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. conditional allowance for exams based on extra classes. (Para 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. directives on costs associated with extra classes. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
D. K. SINGH, J.
The petitioners are the students studying in the 2nd year MBBS of 67th Batch, who took admission in the year 2023 in the 4th respondent, Govt Medical College Kozhikode. All the petitioners were admitted to the college under the merit quota. It appears that the petitioners, along with 11 others, were found to have indulged in ragging activities in the college. Out of 26 students, 16 students could not be identified by the Anti- Ragging Committee constituted as per the UGC’s Anti-Ragging Regulations.
2.The petitioners were suspended for three months from the college. However, after the suspension, they were re- admitted to the college. The revocation of the suspension order in Ext.P6 was passed by the principal of the college. The petitioners were placed under suspension on 04.02.2025. The suspension order further provided that the period of suspension is to be treated as punishment and was directed to stay away from the hostel was extended for a period of six months from the date of suspension.
3. The petitioners, along with other students, who were found guilty of indulging in ragging activities, were placed under strict surveillance for a period of one year, and they were warned that any misbehavior in the future on their part would be treated as a serious offence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the three-month suspension, the petitioners have fallen short of their attendance to write the regular examinations, scheduled to be held on 21.08.2025. He further submits that if extra classes are arranged, they can meet the requirement of the requisite attendance for writing the regular examination, which is to be commenced on 21.08.2025.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner may be put to the cost of extra classes as this court may deem it fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to cover the remuneration to the teachers of the colleges for conducting the extra classes for these students.
6. He has also drawn the attention of this court to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the court in W.A No. 2158/2024 and connected cases, dated 10.04.2025, wherein the requirement of 80% mandatory attendance for appearing in the examination was found not mandatory for the postgraduate medical courses.
7. Ms. Parvathy Kottol, the learned Government Pleader, has vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the three months suspension was a punishment for ragging activities, in which the petitioners were found to have indulged in. she further submits that allowing the petitioners to get away from the punishment by conducting extra classes for them would amount to putting premium on their misconduct. She further submits the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A No. 2158/2024 and connected cases, dated 10.04.2025, are only in respect of the postgraduate students and not for the undergraduate students. The learned Government Pleader submits that if this court directs the college to conduct extra classes for the petitioners by putting them on cost, it should not be treated as a precedent in future.
8. Ms. Helen Jude, the learned Standing Counsel for the University, submits that the petitioners have already been permitted to rejoin the regular second-year batch of the course. She further submits that she respectfully leaves it to this Court to pass such order as it deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. I have considered the submissions advanced.
10. This Court does not, in any manner, con
