Syndicate Meeting Held After VC Dissolves Session is Invalid; Members Cannot Continue by Electing New Chair: Kerala High Court - 2025-09-10

Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala HC Upholds VC's Power to Dissolve Syndicate Meeting, Invalidates Subsequent Session by Members

ERNAKULAM: In a significant ruling on university governance, the Kerala High Court has held that a meeting of a University Syndicate conducted by some members after the Vice-Chancellor (VC) has dissolved the session is not valid in law. Justice T.R. Ravi clarified that members cannot continue a meeting by electing a new chairperson under the guise of the VC's "absence," as such an interpretation could lead to "serious mischief" and undermine the structured functioning of the university.

The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Prof. Dr. K.S. Anilkumar, the Registrar of the University of Kerala, challenging a series of orders issued by the Vice-Chancellor that effectively kept him under suspension and prevented him from discharging his duties.

Background of the Dispute

The conflict began after the petitioner, in his capacity as Registrar, cancelled the permission for a seminar at the University Senate Hall on June 25, 2025, which was being attended by the Governor of Kerala. The Registrar cited potential law and order issues and the placement of alleged religious emblems on the stage as reasons for the cancellation.

Following this incident, which the VC termed a "serious security lapse" that brought the University into disrepute, the Registrar was suspended on July 2, 2025. The suspension was challenged by the Registrar in a separate writ petition.

The matter escalated during a special Syndicate meeting convened on July 6, 2025. The sole agenda, as per the VC's notice, was to finalize the university's statement of facts for the High Court case. However, some members insisted on discussing the legality of the Registrar's suspension. The VC, stating that the matter was sub-judice and not on the agenda, dissolved the meeting at 1:15 PM amidst what he described as a disorderly situation.

Subsequently, a group of 19 members held a second meeting at 1:30 PM, elected a new chairperson, and passed a resolution to revoke the Registrar's suspension. Based on this resolution, the Registrar was purportedly reinstated. The VC refused to recognize this decision, issuing further orders affirming that the suspension was still in force, leading to the present writ petition.

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner's Counsel (Registrar): Argued that the VC's power to suspend is subject to ratification by the Syndicate, which holds the ultimate authority in disciplinary matters. It was contended that once a meeting is convened, the VC cannot unilaterally dissolve it. Counsel relied on Statute 1(2) of Chapter VI of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977, submitting that in the "absence of the Vice Chancellor," the remaining members were entitled to elect a new chair and continue the meeting. Therefore, the resolution revoking the suspension was valid and binding on the VC.

• Respondent's Counsel (Vice-Chancellor): Maintained that the VC had the authority to suspend the Registrar under emergency powers vested by Section 10(13) of the Kerala University Act. The second meeting held on July 6 was illegal as it was not convened by the VC. The VC argued that the original meeting was dissolved due to disorderly conduct and the attempt by some members to introduce an agenda item beyond the scope of the notice. The term "absence of the Vice-Chancellor" in the statutes cannot be interpreted to mean a situation where the VC has officially dissolved a meeting. Such an interpretation would allow a small quorum of members to convene at any time and overturn official decisions, creating chaos.

Court's Analysis and Precedent

Justice T.R. Ravi, reinforcing a view taken in a similar case concerning APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, held that the second meeting was not conducted in accordance with the law. The court reasoned that statutory provisions for university meetings place controls, such as the requirement of being convened by the VC, to prevent misuse and ensure orderly governance.

The judgment distinguished the situation from a mere "absence" of the VC:

“...it is not a case where there was absence of the Vice Chancellor. As already observed, this can lead to absurdities. Even if the Vice Chancellor was in his office, a meeting can be held in another room by 5 members of the Syndicate and call it as a Syndicate meeting, which is not what is contemplated by law... An interpretation of the above said Statute in the manner suggested by the petitioners, will only lead to serious mischief.”

The court also affirmed the power of a chairperson to dissolve a meeting in certain situations, citing Supreme Court precedents. While finding the second meeting invalid, the court also noted that the VC could have handled the situation differently. It observed that the Syndicate could have validly decided to revoke the suspension as part of finalizing its stance for the court, and the VC could have permitted an additional agenda item to resolve the issue.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the Registrar's challenge against the continuation of his suspension, ruling that the Syndicate's resolution to reinstate him was invalid as it was passed in an unlawfully convened meeting.

However, expressing "deep concern" over the infighting between university authorities, the court directed the Vice-Chancellor to convene a proper meeting of the Syndicate to consider whether the Registrar's suspension should be continued. The court underscored that the decision taken by the Syndicate in such a meeting would be binding on the Vice-Chancellor.