Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Archana P.S. & Ors.

Background / Synopsis:

● The appellants (University, Syndicate, Vice Chancellor) challenged an interim order dated 30.10.2026 passed in I.A. No. 2 of 2026 in W.P. (C) No. 35256 of 2026.

● The respondent-petitioners (16 students across MSW, Ph.D., MFA, MA, FYUGP courses) were suspended by Ext.P3 order dated 01.09.2026 pending inquiry into campus incidents on 13.08.2026, leading to FIRs under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

● The students filed W.P. (C) No. 35256 of 2026 challenging their suspension and seeking permission to apply for examinations notified via Ext.P6 on 03.10.2026.

● On 30.10.2026, a Single Judge granted an interim order directing the University to accept examination fees and permit petitioners to write exams starting 04.11.2026, subject to the writ petition's outcome.

● The University filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, contending that the students lacked mandatory attendance, failed internal exams, and never submitted condonation applications.

Issues For Consideration:

1. Whether an intra-court appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 is maintainable against an interlocutory order directing the University to permit suspended students to appear in examinations.

2. Whether the Single Judge erred in issuing an interim direction permitting students to sit for examinations in contravention of statutory University Regulations regarding minimum attendance, internal examination passes, and condonation procedure.

3. Whether granting an interim order allowing examination appearance amounts to granting the final relief claimed in the writ petition without adequate pleadings establishing a prima facie right.

Submissions Of Parties:

Appellants (Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit):

● The respondents lacked requisite attendance (prescribed 75%-80% across various programs) and did not pass internal examinations.

● No applications for condonation of attendance shortage supported by medical certificates or documentary proof were submitted within the statutory 15-day pre-exam deadline.

● The interim order forces the University to act in violation of its own statutory regulations, which is legally impermissible.

● Relied on Apex Court rulings (Craig Mcleod, Harish Chandra, Bhaskara Rao, Bharat Singh, Deoraj) and Division Bench precedents (Antony Thomas, Anas P.M., Pradeepkumar A.V.).

Respondents (Students / Applicants):

● Shortage of attendance, if any, was a direct outcome of the suspension order dated 01.09.2026, which is under challenge.

● Appearance in examinations was subject to the final result of the writ petition, thereby creating no equity or vested right in favour of students.

● Conceded that writ petition averments did not explicitly detail attendance percentages or internal exam passes.

Court's Observations & Analysis:

Re: Maintainability of Intra-Court Appeal (Section 5(i), Kerala High Court Act)

● Under Section 5(i), an appeal lies against an intermediate order passed in a writ petition if the order substantially affects or touches upon substantial rights/liabilities of parties or causes real legal prejudice.

● The impugned interim order passed on 'today motion' directly prejudiced the statutory governance rights of the University.

● Held: The writ appeal is maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. (Paras 31-37)

Re: Statutory Regulations and Mandamus

● Mandamus can only be issued to enforce a legal right; no court has competence to direct an authority to act in contravention of statutory rules.

● Students facing attendance shortage due to suspension suffer it as a natural consequence; permitting exam appearance without satisfying regulations would place a premium on misconduct.

● Attendance shortage condonation requires formal application with evidence within prescribed deadlines, which respondents failed to submit.

● Held: The interim order improperly directed the University to violate its own mandatory Regulations. (Paras 16-24)

Re: Interim Relief Equivalent to Final Relief

● Interim relief tantamounting to final relief can only be granted in rare and exceptional cases where a very strong prima facie case of a standard much higher than ordinary is established.

● Due to total absence of pleadings regarding eligibility, attendance, and internal passes in the writ petition, no prima facie case was established.

● Held: Granting interim permission to write exams virtually granted the main relief without foundational pleadings. (Paras 24-29)

Notable Observations:

"When there is a suspension ordered by reason of which there occurs an attendance shortage; essentially it is just a consequence of the order of suspension, which the students will have to necessarily suffer. Otherwise the penalty imposed will have no effect..." (Para 22)"No mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law." (Para 19)

Decision & Directions:

● Writ Appeal allowed; impugned interim order dated 30.10.2026 in I.A. No. 2 of 2026 in W.P. (C) No. 35256 of 2026 is set aside.

● Observations in the judgment are limited to the disposal of the writ appeal and do not prejudice the final merits of W.P. (C) No. 35256 of 2026.

● Separate Opinions: None