Kalady: Actor Prakash Raj on Saturday criticised the UDF government and Keralam Higher Education Minister Roji M John over the suspension of 16 students at Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit in Kalady, and said he would join their hunger strike if they were not allowed to appear for their examinations.
Raj visited the university campus, where the students have been staging a hunger strike for six days, demanding the withdrawal of their suspension and the right to continue their education without losing an academic year.
The students were suspended following a protest during a university Syndicate meeting on August 13. A street play staged during the protest, however, became the centre of a dispute between the students and the university administration.
Addressing the protesters, Raj questioned the suspension of students for raising concerns about conditions at their university. According to PTI, he accused the state government and university administration of adopting an authoritarian approach towards dissent and said peaceful protest and questioning those in authority were constitutional rights.
He also challenged the demand for apology letters as a condition for reinstatement, arguing that students should not be forced to apologise for raising legitimate concerns, PTI reported. Referring to the constitutional principles associated with Mahatma Gandhi and BR Ambedkar, he said the younger generation would continue to question authority rather than be intimidated into silence.
Raj urged Roji M John, who represents the constituency in which the university is located, to visit the campus, speak to the students and address their grievances, reported PTI. He also questioned the university's decision to challenge an interim High Court order that had allowed the suspended students to appear for examinations.
The actor said he had come to express solidarity with the students and would return to join their hunger strike if the issue remained unresolved. He also thanked the Students' Federation of India (SFI), the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) and other organisations supporting the agitation.
The dispute at Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit has its origins in a student agitation over campus facilities and academic concerns.
Students, led by the SFI, had submitted an 18-point charter of demands seeking improvements in basic infrastructure, drinking water availability, hostel facilities and the filling of vacant faculty positions. They also raised concerns over pending fellowships and other academic entitlements.
The protest escalated on August 13, when students staged a street play during a Syndicate meeting. The performance included a symbolic funeral procession. The students said it represented the neglect of the Theatre Department and the failure to repair equipment, including stage lights. The university administration viewed it as a mock funeral targeting the Vice-Chancellor Ciza Thomas.
Ciza Thomas alleged that protesters obstructed her vehicle, physically assaulted her and pulled her hair as she attempted to leave the university after the meeting. The administration also alleged that university property was damaged. Two cases were registered at the Kalady police station in connection with the incident, and police arrested four SFI activists.
The students rejected the allegations, maintaining that the performance was part of their protest and was not intended to target or assault the Vice-Chancellor.
On September 1, the university suspended 16 students pending a disciplinary inquiry. The action prevented them from attending classes and entering the campus, apart from attending inquiry proceedings. The students challenged the suspension before the Kerala High Court, arguing that their prolonged exclusion was affecting their education and examination eligibility.
The dispute has moved beyond the campus, drawing responses from the Chief Minister's Office, the Higher Education Minister, university Syndicate members, the Vice-Chancellor and political parties.
Chief Minister's Office: The Chief Minister's Office condemned an SFI protest at Maharaja's College in Ernakulam on October 30, when activists interrupted Higher Education Minister Roji M John's address during a convocation ceremony to demand the withdrawal of the Kalady students' suspensions. The CMO accused the protesters of disrupting an important academic event and creating an atmosphere of intimidation. It called on the SFI leadership to apologise to students, parents and the public and warned that action would be taken against those responsible.
The CMO's statement concerned the disruption at Maharaja's College; it was not a direct response to Prakash Raj's visit or the hunger strike at Kalady.
Higher Education Minister Roji M John: The minister has defended the university's disciplinary action, saying that protests are part of campus democracy but violence cannot be accepted in educational institutions. He has maintained that the university, as an autonomous institution, must take decisions on disciplinary matters.
Following the protest at Maharaja's College, John said he had offered to hear the students after the convocation programme, but the activists continued their agitation. He also said the decision to revoke the suspensions rested with the university.
On November 5, the minister reiterated that educational institutions could not compromise on discipline and a peaceful campus atmosphere. He said the students had not followed the prescribed procedures for examination-related applications and had approached the court instead. He also said he was aware of the developments from the beginning because the university is located in his constituency.
University Syndicate: The university's disciplinary inquiry committee concluded that all 16 students had participated in the August protest and upheld the administration's allegations concerning the treatment of the Vice-Chancellor. It described the protest as undemocratic and recommended disciplinary action.
At a Syndicate meeting on November 2, the university decided to revoke the suspension of 12 students if they submitted written apologies and undertakings, accompanied by their parents or guardians. The suspension of four others was extended by two months pending further investigation, with the university citing alleged violations of campus-entry restrictions.
Syndicate member K B Sabu said the conditional relief was intended to allow the students to return to academic activity. However, the students rejected the apology condition. Two Syndicate members also recorded their dissent against the inquiry report.
Vice-Chancellor Ciza Thomas: Thomas has maintained that the students did not meet the attendance requirements to appear for the examinations. She challenged the Single Bench order that had provisionally allowed them to write the examinations, arguing that the university could not disregard its academic regulations.
The Vice-Chancellor has also alleged that she was physically attacked during the August 13 protest. These allegations remain part of the police investigation; the High Court Division Bench did not make findings on the rival accounts of the incident while deciding the examination appeal.
Opposition: CPI(M) leaders have accused the UDF government and the university administration of targeting students for exercising their right to protest. On November 5, CPI(M) MLA PA Muhammad Riyas alleged that the government was taking retaliatory action against students who had staged a street play to demand pending fellowships and other rights. He accused the university of obstructing their academic future.
CPI(M) state secretary MV Govindan has also backed the students' legal challenge. Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan criticised the alleged online attacks against an SFI activist who questioned the minister during the Maharaja's College convocation, as well as the police action against students.
The UDF government and the university have rejected the charge that the disciplinary action is politically motivated, maintaining that campus discipline and institutional procedures must be upheld.
Students and SFI: The suspended students have refused to submit apology letters, saying that doing so would amount to accepting allegations they deny. They have demanded the unconditional withdrawal of the suspension of all 16 students and permission to appear for examinations.
SFI leaders have argued that the agitation was a democratic protest over campus deficiencies and that the university's action was disproportionate. The students have continued their hunger strike despite the university's conditional offer of reinstatement.
The legal proceedings have centred on the validity of the suspensions and whether the students could be allowed to appear for examinations while their challenge to the disciplinary action remained pending.
The students approached the Kerala High Court after being suspended on September 1. They argued that the university had kept them away from classes and the campus without completing the disciplinary proceedings, affecting their academic progress.
On October 30, a Single Bench of the High Court directed the university to accept the students' examination fees and provisionally allow them to appear for the examinations, subject to the final outcome of the main petition.
The university and the Vice-Chancellor challenged the order. On November 3, a Division Bench set aside the Single Bench's interim direction. It observed that the students' pleadings did not adequately establish that they met the requirements to appear for the examinations, including attendance and other eligibility conditions. The court also noted that the interim order had effectively granted the principal relief sought in the petition before the case was fully considered.
The Division Bench clarified that it was not examining the rival allegations about the August 13 incident, as the police investigation was continuing.
The students then approached the Supreme Court. On November 5, a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe declined to interfere with the Division Bench order but asked the Kerala High Court Single Bench to decide the students' main petition expeditiously.
The university gave an undertaking before the Supreme Court that it would conduct special examinations for the students if the High Court eventually rules in their favour. The undertaking was recorded by the apex court.
The Supreme Court's order did not reinstate the students or restore their immediate permission to write the examinations. The validity of their suspension and the allegations relating to the protest remain to be decided in the pending proceedings.
The immediate question is whether the Kerala High Court will set aside or uphold the university's suspension orders when it considers the students' main petition. The Supreme Court has asked the Single Bench to dispose of the matter without delay, while the university has undertaken to conduct special examinations if the students succeed.
The university's offer to reinstate 12 students subject to written apologies has not resolved the impasse. The students continue to demand unconditional reinstatement and have refused to accept the apology requirement.
Prakash Raj's intervention has brought national attention to the dispute, adding to the pressure on the state government and university authorities. However, the immediate resolution depends on the pending judicial proceedings and the university's disciplinary process.
At the centre of the dispute are two questions that remain unresolved: how to address allegations of violence during a campus protest, and how to ensure that disciplinary action does not leave students' academic futures in limbo.
(With inputs from PTI, The New Indian Express, LiveLaw, ThePrint and Kerala Kaumudi)