Kerala High Court cancels Governor's student nominations to Kerala University Senate

The Kerala High Court recently set aside the student nominations made by Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan to the Senate of the Kerala University of which he is the Chancellor [Arunima Ashok and ors v. The Chancellor, University of Kerala]..In the May 21 judgment, Justice Mohammed Nias CP also highlighted the boundaries of the Chancellor’s powers while nominating members to the Senate.The Court concluded that the nominations by the Chancellor did not conform to statutory requirements, and added that he does not have "unbridled power" while making the nominations.Constitutional courts can interfere when such nominations are not made reasonably or according to the statutory requirements, the Court said. "It is trite that there is no unbridled power vested with the Chancellor while making the nominations in terms of the statutory provisions. As stated above, there is an infraction of statutory provisions rendering the nomination bad. Though it is a case of nomination, in the exercise of the statutory power, if the nomination made is contrary to the requirement of the statute or if relevant factors were not considered or if irrelevant factors were considered in making the decisions, which no reasonable person would have done, the nominations will have to be interfered with by the Constitutional Courts," the judgment stated. .The Court, therefore, ordered the Chancellor to make fresh nominations within six weeks..The Court was dealing with writ petitions challenging several nominations made to the Kerala University Senate.The Senate members generally belong to four categories - ex-officio members, elected members, life members and other members.The Chancellor of the University is empowered to nominate four students to the Senate under the category of "other members." As per the law applicable to the University, these students should have outstanding ability in their respective field. The nomination should also be such that one student is nominated from each of four fields, namely humanities, sciences, fine arts and sports. .Arif Khan's 2023 decision to nominate Abhishek D Nair (humanities), Dhruvin SL (science), Malavika Udayan (fine arts) and Sudhi Sadan (sports) to the Senate, however, drew some controversy. There were allegations that some of these nominees were picked due to their affiliation to the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP).Two writ petitions were filed before the High Court by four students who questioned whether the nominees possessed the outstanding qualities required of them. The petitioners claimed to be rank-holders who had more achievements to their credit when compared to the nominees. Despite this, the petitioners were not considered for nomination, the Court was told. It was also argued that the Chancellor did not adhere to procedural norms while making the nominations. .During the hearings, a statement was submitted on behalf of the Chancellor which highlighted that there was no specific procedure prescribed for nominations. It was added that just because a student held a rank, it did not always mean that such a student is superior to other students."The provisions in the Act do not ask for outstanding performance, which may reflect through higher ranks in the examinations. The yardstick for assessing the ability of the person will be different," the statement said..The Court agreed that ranks were not the only marker for evaluating a student's ability. However, it proceeded to find fault with the Chancellor for not having considered the rank-holding petitioners at all for nomination. The Court observed that the Chancellor did not have the power to nominate students while disregarding the rank holders or students with credentials altogether. "Rank holders are certainly persons who should be treated as students with outstanding academic ability ... Their credentials do not look inferior to those of the students nominated ... True, it is only a nomination and there is an element of discretion involved while making choices. Even for that, eligibility criteria fixed in the statute cannot be forgotten," the Court said. It added that any arbitrary use of discretionary powers would violate the rule of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. "An unguided, unfettered and unbridled power is foreign to the exercise of any power, constitutional or statutory. It is trite that even in the exercise of discretionary power, the requirements of reasonableness, rationality, impartiality, fairness and equity are inherent to such exercise and can never be according to any private opinion," the Court further observed..The Court proceeded to quash the student nominations made by the Chancellor..In the same judgment, the Court also dismissed a writ petition filed by an academician, Dr. KN Madhusudanan Pillai, who challenged the nomination of three State nominees to the Senate (Muralidharan Pillai, Dr. Shiju Khan JS and R Rajesh).The academician had argued that these nominees did not possess the required experience in the field of higher education.The Court, however, disagreed and found that these nominees had enough experience. The Court added that criminal cases pending against some of them was not grounds to disqualify them. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition challenging these nominations..The student petitioners (Arnunima Ashok, Kavya TS Nanda Kishore and Avanth Sen) were represented by senior advocate Elvin Peter along with advocates KR Ganesh, Gouri Balagopal, Sreelakshmi AS and advocates MA Asif and Anwin John Antony.Dr. KN Madhusudanan Pillai was represented by advocates S Biju, Jaishankar V Nair, Parshathy SR, John Gomez and Achuth Krishnan R.Senior advocate P Sreekumar along with standing counsel S Prashant represented the University Chancellor.Standing counsel Thomas Abraham represented the Kerala University.Advocates RV Sreejith, TC Krishna, C Dinesh and Suvin R Menon appeared for the student nominees whose nomination has now been quashed.Special government pleader TB Hood appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]