A student's disciplinary conduct and fulfillment of attendance requirements do not warrant relief under equitable jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Business Administration (Honours) under the 1^st respondent University. He was admitted to the course in the year 2024. While undergoing the said course, petitioner got involved in Crime No.1490/2025 of Kunnathunadu Police Station, alleging offences, including Sections 5 (i), 5(l) and 8 read with Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012, and was remanded to custody on 30.12.2025. Subsequently, after undergoing 44 days of incarceration, petitioner was granted bail on 10.02.2026. In the meanwhile, the petitioner lost out on the attendance for the Semester. Since the Semester Examination is about to start on 11.03.2026, petitioner sought condonation of attendance and has approached this Court seeking directions to permit him to remit the examination fee and to appear for the IV Semester examination.

2. A statement has been filed by the 4^th respondent pointing out that a student shall be permitted to register for the end semester evaluation for specific course only if he has completed 75% of the prescribed class room activities in physical, online or blended modes, including any makeup activities as specified by the course faculty of the particular course. It was also pointed out that, the commencement date of the IV semester for the 2024 admission students was 11-10-2025, and it ended on 06-03-2026 and the attendance details of the petitioner, submitted by the Principal of the college, revealed that he has secured only 31% attendance in the Fourth semester, he cannot be considered eligible for condonation of the shortage of attendance.

3. I have considered the rival submissions.

4. The petitioner has only a total attendance of 31 % in the semester course as against the minimum required 75%. The limit for condonation is 65%. The petitioner’s attandance percentage falls far below the minimum condonable limit.

5. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently pleaded, referring to the order granting bail, that even if the entire allegations are admitted, still it was merely a romantic relationship, I am of the view that the offence alleged against the petitioner is a serious and grave crime, it being under the POCSO Act. As far as the University Regulations are concerned, adopting a liberal view in this matter would foster indiscipline and set an undesirable precedent. Discipline of an academic institution is maintained by compliance to the rules and regulations already in force. In exceptional circumstances, a minor variation in attendance can be condoned by recourse to the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, such reliefs ought to be based on the circumstances of each case.

6. In the instant case, the circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraphs indicate that it was the petitioner’s own actions that resulted in him securing attendance less than the minimum required.

7. Adopting a lenient view in such matters would be in disregard of academic discipline and, will set an undesirable precedent. It would even undermine the integrity of the course and erode the value that the requirement of attendance carries. In this context, it is essential to bear in mind the principle that equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not be exercised in favour of a person who invited the misery to himself.

Having regard to the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-