A student cannot be illegally prevented from attending classes or examinations solely because they are an accused in a criminal case if no formal suspension order has been issued, as such action violates principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of January, 2025

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in refusing to permit the petitioner to attend classes for the B.Tech Course in Safety and Fire Engineering and to attend Examinations including Supplementary Examinations on the ground that the petitioner is an accused in a crime.

2. The petitioner was accused in a crime for offences punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The petitioner was arrested and was remanded. The petitioner was in custody for 34 days. Finally, the petitioner was granted conditional bail as per Ext.P2 order dated 09.04.2024 of the Court of the Additional and District Sessions Judge, Ernakulam.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that after obtaining the bail, when the petitioner went to the College to attend classes, the petitioner was declined permission to sit in the classes. The petitioner states that no suspension order was imposed against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has a legal right to continue his studies. The petitioner made Ext.P4 request to the Head of the Department seeking to permit him to attend classes. The said request was rejected as per Ext.P5 communication dated 13.05.2024 of the Registrar of the Cochin University of Science and Technology. It is aggrieved by Ext.P5 that the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.21610/2023 and a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Abu Zaid (Minor) and another v. Principal, Madrasa-Tul-Islah Saraimir Azamgath and others [1999 KHC 2754] to contend that the petitioner cannot be prevented from attending classes. The prevention is in violation of the principles of natural justice, when there is no formal suspension order.

5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The respondents submitted that request of the petitioner to attend the classes was considered by the Vice Chancellor and it was decided to decline his request. The decision was taken relying on Clause V to VII of the Code of Conduct.

6. It is further submitted that the Principal as per letter dated 01.07.2024 sought clarification regarding the further action to be taken against the petitioner. It was informed that the student was not permitted to attend the VIth Semester B.Tech Degree Examination-May, 2024 and that the VIIth Semester Classes of 2021 admissions had started from 01.07.2024. The Vice Chancellor therefore ordered to maintain status quo in the case and the same was communicated to the Principal, School of Engineering as per letter dated 13.08.2024 for intimating the petitioner.

7. The respondents further pointed out that the request of the petitioner to attend the classes was rejected twice by the Vice Chancellor as is evidenced from Ext.P5. The issue will be coming up before the Syndicate for consideration in the ensuing Syndicate meeting. The matter should be left to the decision of the Syndicate, urged the Standing Counsel for the respondents.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

9. The petitioner is implicated in an offence committed on 28.02.2024. The petitioner was arrested on 02.03.2024. The petitioner was remanded for a period of 34 days. Finally, the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam granted conditional bail to the petitioner as per Ext.P2 order dated 09.04.2024.

10. Even after obtaining bail, the petitioner is not permitted to attend the classes. I