Vice-Chancellor Has Statutory Power To Adjourn A Convened Syndicate Meeting For Bona Fide Reasons: Kerala High Court - 2025-09-07

VC's Authority to Adjourn Syndicate Meeting Upheld by Kerala High Court

Kochi: In a significant ruling on university governance, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice T.R. Ravi, has upheld the authority of a Vice-Chancellor to adjourn a duly convened Syndicate meeting for bona fide reasons. The court invalidated the decisions taken in a subsequent meeting conducted by Syndicate members after the Vice-Chancellor had called off the initial session, dismissing a writ petition filed by a Syndicate member.

The judgment also highlighted a critical constitutional lapse, admonishing the state government and legislature for failing to publish an authoritative English translation of the University's First Statutes, as mandated by Article 348(3) of the Constitution.

---

Background of the Case

The legal dispute arose at the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. Dr. Vinodkumar Jacob, a Syndicate member, filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Vice-Chancellor (VC) that annulled decisions made during what the petitioner claimed was the 63rd Syndicate meeting.

The conflict began when the VC convened the meeting but declared it closed without transacting any business on the agenda. This was due to persistent demands from some members to include a new item concerning disciplinary action against a university employee, which was not on the circulated agenda. Following the VC's departure, a majority of the members present elected one among them to preside and proceeded with the meeting, passing several resolutions. The VC subsequently issued an order nullifying all decisions taken in this "continued" meeting.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Stance: The petitioners argued that the VC lacked the authority to annul a decision of the Syndicate, the university's chief executive body. They contended that under the University's First Statutes, members could elect a chairperson and continue a meeting in the VC's absence. They asserted that the subsequent meeting was a valid continuation of the originally convened session and that the VC’s actions were arbitrary. A second petition sought to implement decisions from the disputed meeting, which had received government approval.

Respondent's (Vice-Chancellor's) Stance: The Vice-Chancellor countered that the subsequent meeting was illegal as it was not convened under his direction, as required by the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015. He argued that the provision for electing a chairperson applies only when a meeting is convened in the VC's absence from the start, not when a meeting is officially called off by him. The VC maintained that he had exercised his emergency powers under Section 14(5) of the Act due to the disorderly conduct of some members and that the situation required immediate action to maintain order.

Court's Legal Reasoning and Analysis

The High Court meticulously examined the statutory framework governing the University, particularly Section 28 of the Act, which outlines the procedure for convening Syndicate meetings. Justice Ravi observed that a valid meeting requires the direction of the Vice-Chancellor and must be convened by the Registrar.

The court held that the meeting conducted by the members after the VC had called off the session did not meet these statutory requirements.

“A properly convened meeting cannot be postponed. The proper course to adopt is to hold the meeting as originally intended, and then and there adjourn it to a more suitable date... Even if the relevant rules do not give the chairman power to adjourn the meeting, he may do so in the event of disorder.”

The court reasoned that allowing members to hold meetings independently of the VC could lead to chaos, with small groups potentially making decisions that could upset the university's stable functioning. It was established that the VC, as the university's principal executive officer, possesses the inherent power to adjourn a meeting for bona fide reasons, such as maintaining order.

A Stern Reminder on Constitutional Mandates

A significant portion of the judgment was dedicated to the absence of an authoritative English text of the University's First Statutes, 2020. Justice Ravi expressed deep concern over the continued failure of the state authorities to comply with Article 348(3) of the Constitution, which mandates the publication of an English translation of all state laws and subordinate legislation.

"It is disheartening to note that all the reminders issued by this Court are falling into deaf ears... Should not the students coming from all over India and all over the World have access to the law relating the University where they wish to pursue their higher education or should we still remain as “Koopa mandookam” (translated as frog in a well)?”

The court emphasized that for a state aspiring to be a global education hub, making laws accessible in English is not just a constitutional duty but a practical necessity.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 3197 of 2025) challenging the VC's order, thereby validating his annulment of the decisions from the member-led meeting. In the related petition (W.P.(C) No. 5548 of 2025), the court rejected the plea to implement those decisions.

However, the court directed the Vice-Chancellor to convene a fresh Syndicate meeting at the earliest to address the untransacted business. In a concluding note of guidance, Justice Ravi advised that adjourning meetings over requests for agenda additions is not always necessary and that a chairperson has the discretion to add items for discussion.