Kerala HC To Hear Father's Appeal Against Release Of Certificates To Students Accused Of Abetting Daughter's Suicide

KOCHI – The Kerala High Court has admitted a significant writ appeal filed by the father of a deceased nursing student, challenging a Single Judge's directive to issue course completion certificates to three classmates accused of abetting his daughter's suicide. The case, Sajeev T. v. Aleena Dileep and Ors. , brings to the forefront the contentious issue of an educational institution's authority to withhold academic credentials amidst ongoing criminal and disciplinary proceedings against its students.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. admitted the appeal (WA No. 2488/2025) on Friday, October 17, and issued notices to the respondent students. The decision sets the stage for a critical examination of the balance between students' rights to their academic records and an institution's prerogative to maintain discipline, especially in the shadow of grave criminal allegations.

The appeal, moved by advocates Raghul Sudheesh, J. Lakshmi, Ambily T. Venu, and Rachel Mary Jacob, assails the judgment of a Single Bench dated September 23, 2025. That judgment, in WP(C) No. 30520/2025, had directed the nursing college to immediately release the Course, Conduct, and Transfer Certificates to the three respondent students, noting they had completed their academic requirements.

Background of the Tragedy and Legal Battle

The case stems from the tragic death of Ammu Sajeev, a nursing student who took her own life on November 15, 2024. Her father, the appellant Sajeev T., alleges that his daughter was driven to this extreme step by relentless harassment from the three respondents. The appeal details a harrowing narrative of "false accusations of theft, social ostracization, public humiliation, mental cruelty, etc.," which allegedly made life at the college and hostel unbearable for the deceased.

Following her death, the Pathanamthitta Police registered Crime No. 1582/2024 against the three students. They face serious charges, including offences under Section 108 (Abetment of suicide) and Section 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

In response to the incident and the ensuing police investigation, the nursing college initiated its own disciplinary action. The respondent students were placed under suspension, and crucially, the college authorities withheld their certificates and refused to forward their applications for registration with the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council.

It was this administrative action by the college that the three students challenged by filing the writ petition before the Single Bench of the High Court. They argued that having completed their course, the college had no right to withhold their certificates, which were essential for their professional registration and future careers. The Single Judge ruled in their favour, leading to the present appeal by the victim's father, who was permitted to file a third-party appeal by the Division Bench on October 14.

Grounds of Appeal: A Clash of Rights and Duties

The appellant's core contention is that the Single Bench erred by overlooking the gravity of the circumstances that prompted the college to withhold the certificates. The appeal memo argues that the college principal's decision was a reasoned one, predicated on two key factors: the pending internal disciplinary proceedings and the ongoing police investigation into serious criminal offences.

The appellant asserts that the issuance of certificates, particularly a 'Conduct Certificate', would be premature and improper while the students' conduct is the very subject of both institutional and criminal scrutiny. According to the appellant's plea, the Single Judge's decision "had failed to appreciate the actual facts and circumstances for the withholding of the certificates."

This position raises fundamental questions for legal and academic governance: 1. Institutional Autonomy vs. Student Rights: To what extent can an educational institution exercise its disciplinary authority by withholding academic credentials, which are the culmination of a student's academic effort and financial investment? 2. Presumption of Innocence vs. Administrative Prudence: How should an institution navigate the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' when faced with serious allegations that tarnish its reputation and affect the campus environment? 3. The Nature of 'Conduct' Certificates: Can a college issue a certificate attesting to satisfactory conduct when the student is an accused in a case involving abetment of a fellow student's suicide?

The appeal also includes an interim prayer for a stay on the operation of the Single Bench's judgment, which, if granted, would prevent the immediate release of the certificates to the accused students pending the final outcome of the appeal.

Legal Implications and the Road Ahead

The Division Bench's decision to admit the appeal signals that the court sees merit in the arguments raised by the victim's father and is willing to delve deeper into the intricate legal and ethical questions involved. The outcome of this appeal will have far-reaching implications for educational institutions across the state in formulating policies regarding student conduct and the issuance of certificates in cases involving criminal investigations.

Legal experts will be closely watching how the Division Bench interprets the interplay between the college's administrative rules, the students' right to education and profession under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution, and the overarching demands of justice for the victim. The inclusion of charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act adds another layer of complexity, indicating a caste-based dimension to the alleged harassment, which the court will likely need to consider.

The case underscores the increasing responsibility of educational institutions to address issues of student harassment and mental health, while also navigating the procedural complexities that arise when such incidents lead to criminal proceedings. The final judgment in Sajeev T. v. Aleena Dileep and Ors. is poised to become a landmark ruling, offering crucial guidance on the duties of educational bodies when confronted with the tragic consequences of campus bullying and harassment.