SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.SATHISH – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

& W.M.P.No.50308 of 2025

Mr.M.Sathish, Aged 31 Years,

S/o. P.Mariappan,

16/191-1 Military Camp Opposite,

Palakkad Main Road,

Madukkarai, Coimbatore 641 105. … Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Union Of India,

Rep. by the Secretary to the Government,

Ministry of Education,

Department of Higher Education, Room No. 127-C, Shastri Bhavan,

New Delhi.

2.The State of Tamil Nadu

Rep. by the Secretary to Government,

Department of Higher Education,

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

3.The Secretary,

University Grant Commission,

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,

New Delhi 110 002.

4.The Amritha University

Rep. by its Registrar,

Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham

Amritanagar Post,

Ettimadai, Coimbatore 641 112.

5.The Chancellor

Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham,

Mata Amritanandamayi Math, Amritapuri Clappana, Kollam 690 525.

6.The Vice Chancellor, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham , Amritanagar Post Ettimadai Coimbatore 641 112

7.Professor Dr.N. Radhika, Head Research of Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritanagar Post, Ettimadai, Coimbatore 641 112. … Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, direction to the 4th respondent to allow the petitioner to complete his Ph.D degree program with the University fellowship grants payable from date of inducting him in to the Ph.D degree, with all consequential benefits, while refunding the petitioner’s JRF stipend, a sum of Rs.2,60,400/- (Rupees Two Lakhs, Sixty Thousand and Four Hundred Only), which were unlawfully taken from the petitioner and grant any other relief deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice and equity.

For Petitioner: M/s.P.G.Aishwariya For Respondents: Mrs.V.Sudha, Standing Counsel, for R1 Mr.A.E.Ayyadurai, Government Advocate for R2 Mr.K.Sankararaman for R4 and R6 Mr.A.Ashok Kumar, for R7 Not Ready Notice, for R5

ORDER

This writ petition is filed to direct the 4th respondent to allow the petitioner to complete his Ph.D degree programme with the University fellowship grants payable from the date of inducting him into the Ph.D degree with all consequential benefits, while refunding the petitioners JRF stipend, a sum of Rs.2,60,400/-, which were unlawfully taken from the petitioner and for grant of further reliefs.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition is that the petitioner, namely M.Sathish, is a Research Scholar in the 4th respondent University namely The Amritha University. The 7th respondent namely, Professor, Dr.N.Radhika, was his Guide. Making out several grievances against the guide and certain inquiries, that were conducted against the petitioner, the petitioner had approached this Court. The writ petition is also contested by the respective respondents by filing a detailed counter affidavits.

3. This Court, on a previous occasion, heard the learned counsel on either side in detail. After hearing the learned counsel on either side in detail, the Court could see that, this is a conflict, that had arisen during the course of working together of a Research Scholar and a Guide and the University and the entire dispute is in the realm of academics. Therefore, when it is desirable that the Research Scholar, such as, the petitioner and the University, and also the other academicians, shall concentrate on academic matters rather than insisting on their respective claims being adjudicated, which will only result in further appeal, it was also represented by the 4th respondent-University that to resolve the impasse, one Dr.Govindarajan, Associate Professor and thesis advisor, will henceforth be the Guide to the petitioner and the petitioner can continue his research under the new Guide.

4. Under the said circumstances, by specifically making observations that, without reference to the past and trading allegations, the petitioner is to have a meeting with the guide to decide the future course, an interim order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top