Thiruvananthapuram: A preliminary draft on regulating student political activities at the University of Kerala has triggered a political controversy, with Opposition parties and student organisations objecting to its provisions while the university and the state government insist that no decision has been taken to ban student politics.
Kerala University syndicate member and sub-committee convenor Ajay Juel Kuriakose said on Monday that the university would not approve any proposal that sought to ban student politics or deny students a platform to express their views.
Kuriakose said the document circulating in the media was only an internal preliminary draft prepared as part of a process initiated following directions from the Kerala High Court. It has not been approved or notified by the university.
The eight-member syndicate sub-committee has three CPI(M) members, one BJP member and four Congress members. Kuriakose said the committee had agreed that the eventual regulations should recognise student organisational activities and contain provisions acceptable to students.
The draft will be discussed further before a revised version is sent to student political organisations for their views in writing. The suggestions will then be considered before the proposal goes to the standing committee and subsequently the syndicate for approval. It would have to be approved by the syndicate, chaired by the Vice Chancellor, before becoming an official university regulation. PTI reported these details based on Kuriakose's statements.
The controversy arose after a draft titled Kerala University Students' Code of Conduct Regulations 2026 was circulated.
According to The New Indian Express, the document proposes prohibiting political activities in the university and affiliated institutions and restricting activities including propagation of the ideologies of recognised political parties, political campaigning through social media, political slogans that disrupt institutional functioning and agitations based on political ideologies. It also proposes disciplinary powers for principals and penalties for violations. The newspaper reported that members of the syndicate differed over the status of the document, with some saying it had been circulated to members while others said it had not been formally discussed.
Higher Education Minister Roji M John, however, said the document was forwarded by the university's legal section for discussion and included provisions from the Mahatma Gandhi University Students' Code of Conduct Rules, 2005. He said the draft would be examined, amended and placed before student organisations before any final decision. PTI reported similar remarks by the minister.
The minister has also said the UDF government's position is that student politics should continue on campuses and that there is no move to ban it at Kerala University.
The present exercise stems from a Kerala High Court direction issued in February 2026.
While hearing petitions connected to campus violence, including litigation that followed the 2018 killing of SFI activist Abhimanyu at Maharaja's College, the court directed the syndicates of universities involved in the proceedings to formulate mechanisms to regulate student political activity and maintain campus discipline.
The court referred to the Mahatma Gandhi University Students' Code of Conduct Rules, 2005 as a model that other universities could consider. The direction was aimed at addressing political conflicts and preventing violence without leaving universities without a regulatory framework.
The Abhimanyu case remains before the courts. In July 2026, the Kerala High Court rejected a plea by five accused seeking to halt the trial against 16 accused until the investigation into other alleged accused was completed. The trial is continuing before the Ernakulam Sessions Court.
The case illustrates why campus violence remains part of the debate around political activity. Abhimanyu, a second-year BSc Chemistry student and SFI unit secretary at Maharaja's College, was fatally stabbed on the campus on July 2, 2018, during a clash involving rival student groups, according to the prosecution case.
The controversy is not new. Kerala's campuses have historically been important recruiting grounds for political organisations, with several prominent political leaders beginning their careers in student movements.
Former Chief Minister Oommen Chandy, for example, began his political career as a KSU unit secretary at St George High School in Puthuppally. The New Indian Express has reported that Chandy repeatedly recalled the Orana Samaram, a KSU agitation against an increase in student boat-fare concessions under the EMS Namboodiripad government, as an experience that drew him deeper into student politics. The protest later became one of the important episodes in the history of student movements in Kerala.
Former Union minister AK Antony, another leader who rose through KSU, has repeatedly argued that campus politics has a legitimate democratic role.
Speaking at a function marking the 60th anniversary of KSU in Kochi in May 2017, Antony called for politics to be brought back to campuses. He argued that political activity had been restricted in the name of improving academic standards but that the restrictions had not produced the expected improvement in educational standards. The New Indian Express reported his remarks.
In another report on the same event, PTI reported Antony as arguing that organising students through campus organisations was necessary to hold private educational institutions accountable. Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala, speaking at the event, raised a different concern: the emergence of organisations seeking to mobilise students along religious lines.
Pinarayi Vijayan has also publicly defended a role for student politics. Speaking at a seminar at Kannur University in October 2017, he said nobody could say that students should not engage in politics. Manorama Online reported the remarks.
In the present controversy, Vijayan has again criticised the proposed restrictions. The New Indian Express reported his argument that an 18-year-old who can legally vote should not be denied the right to think and respond politically.
The positions do not, however, amount to an argument that all forms of campus political activity should be unrestricted. Antony himself said in 2017 that violence accompanying student politics was a serious concern and that it required separate measures.
The legal history of restrictions on political activity in Kerala's schools predates the present controversy. A significant intervention came from the Kerala High Court in its November 8, 1996 judgment in Sathyavan Kottarakkara and Another v State of Kerala and Others.
In the judgment, Justice KS Radhakrishnan noted concerns raised by educationists, administrators and others over political intervention in schools and colleges and campus violence. The court observed that students were being drawn into politics by political parties and others, which it said could disrupt the educational system and create an atmosphere of tension and lawlessness on campuses and, at times, in classrooms. The judgment also referred to instances of violence in which students had lost their lives. The Kerala High Court judgment recorded these concerns while considering the need to protect students' education and campus discipline.
The court also referred to an earlier 1991 Kerala High Court proceeding, in which it had observed that school campuses should provide a healthy environment for students and that politicisation of schools was generally undesirable because of its potential to breed violence. At the same time, the court said students should be exposed to the principles and practice of democracy. It noted that School Parliaments were intended to provide such an opportunity, but that elections had begun to be conducted along political-party lines, turning them into what the court described as "micro-general elections". These observations are part of the 1996 judgment's account of the earlier proceedings.
The judgment also referred to a Director of Public Instruction circular of November 16, 1995, which recorded concerns that elections to School Parliaments in some schools were being disrupted by people influencing students from outside, affecting the smooth functioning of the institutions.
In its final directions, the High Court said School Parliament elections should not be conducted along political-party lines. It allowed the School Parliament to function as a platform for sports, cultural and educational activities. The court further directed that students or student organisations should not be allowed to engage in political activity on or outside the school campus when such activity affected or disrupted the functioning of the school or the studies of other students. It also directed headmasters to take disciplinary action where such disruption occurred, prevent outside influence over students, and report violence or attempts to disrupt studies to the police. These directions are set out in paragraph 34 of the 1996 judgment.
The court linked these restrictions to what it described as the fundamental right to uninterrupted education under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment also referred to the constitutional duty to protect children and the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, noting that many children in government and aided schools came from such sections.
Importantly, the 1996 judgment was specifically concerned with schools and school-level political activity. The court stated that elections to colleges and other higher-education institutions were not directly the subject of that writ petition, but directed the State to formulate appropriate regulatory measures to contain unrest among students in colleges and other higher-education institutions.
The judgment therefore provides an important part of the background to Kerala's continuing debate over student politics: the concern was not simply whether students could have political views, but how political activity, party influence, violence and disruption could affect the functioning of educational institutions and students' right to uninterrupted education. The present Kerala University controversy raises a related but distinct question — how far such regulation should extend at the university level without curbing legitimate student political participation.
(With inputs from PTI | The New Indian Express | Business Standard/PTI | Manorama Online | Kerala High Court judgment | LiveLaw)