[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
A K Sivaganga vs The Principal on 6 January, 2026
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
W.P.(C)No.48465/25
1
2026:KER:220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 16TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 48465 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
A K SIVAGANGA
AGED 25 YEARS
HOUSE NO.33, PADMA NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
BY ADV SHRI.V.S.BABU GIREESAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE PRINCIPAL
MAR GREGORIOS COLLEGE OF LAW, MARIVANIOS
VIDYANGAR, NALANCHIRA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695015
2 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS
THE KERALA UNIVERSITY, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 21 ROSE AVENUE
INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEAR BALA BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110002
BY ADV SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
W.P.(C)No.48465/25
2
2026:KER:220
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. RAJIT, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.01.2026, THE COURT ON 06.01.02026 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.48465/25
3
2026:KER:220
V.G.ARUN, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.48465 of 2025
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is studying for the Final Year Integrated
Course in BBA LLB in the Mar Gregorios College of Law,
Thiruvananthapuram and has completed her 9 th semester. The
petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the
respondents to allow her to appear for the 9 th Semester
examinations scheduled from 06.01.2026 onwards.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that his
client cannot be refrained from appearing for the examinations
on the ground of shortage of attendance, in view of the
declaration/direction in the judgment of the High Court of Delhi
in W.P.Crl.No.793/2017. By the said judgment, the High Court
has declared that no student enrolled in any recognised law
college shall be detained from taking examination on the ground
of lack of minimum attendance. It is then contended that as per
2026:KER:220
the Regulations relating to Integrated Five Year BBA LLB
Degree Course, each semester should consist of 90 instructional
days having 5 hours per day. As against this, the petitioner's
college had conducted classes only on 44 days during the 9 th
semester and if classes were conducted for 90 days, the
petitioner would have been able to makeup the shortage of
attendance. Even though a complaint regarding the failure to
conduct classes for the requisite number of days was submitted
before the University, except sending a communication stating
that an urgent report has been sought from the 1 st respondent,
nothing further has been done.
3. Learned counsel alleged that the shortage of attendance
of another student was condoned by the Principal on five
occasions, contrary to the stipulation that shortage can be
condoned only two times during the entire course. It is finally
submitted that the shortage of attendance had occurred due to
petitioner's ailments and hence a lenient view ought to be
taken.
2026:KER:220
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Principal of the
college submitted that the petitioner had only 6.38% attendance
in the 9th semester and even after adding the attendance of the
days on which the petitioner had appeared for supplementary
examinations, her total attendance is 18.33% alone. It is pointed
out that the requisite minimum attendance is 75% and the
Principal can only condone shortage of attendance upto 65%.
The University had scheduled the 9th semester from 02.06.2025
to 31.10.2025 and within that period there were 18 Government
holidays as well as compulsory study leave holidays. Further,
classes could not be conducted for many days since the
centralised valuation centre of examination papers was
conducted in the college. Therefore, the college could conduct
classes only on 44 days. Learned counsel also refuted the
allegation of discrimination and submitted that even a student
with 44% attendance is not being permitted to appear for the
examinations. Moreover, the petitioner with only 6.38% actual
attendance of classes is not equipped to appear for
2026:KER:220
examinations.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted
that as per the extant regulations, 75% attendance is mandatory
and condonation can only be upto 65%, that too based on the
recommendation of the Principal of the College. In the
petitioner's case, the Principal has not made any
recommendation and the application for condonation is
submitted by the petitioner herself.
6. There is no dispute to the fact that the percentage of
actual attendance of classes by the petitioner is only 6.38%.
Even after adding attendance of the supplementary
examinations for which the petitioner had appeared during the
9th Semester, her attendance comes to only 18.33%. Going by
Clause 5 of the Regulations Relating to Integrated Five Year
BBA LLB course of the University of Kerala, no candidate shall
be permitted to register for the end semester examination
conducted by the University unless the Principal has certified
that he has obtained not less than 75% attendance in each
2026:KER:220
paper. Of course, if there are valid reasons, the Principal of the
institution can recommend for condonation upto 65%. The said
exception will not come to the petitioner's rescue as her
attendance is an abysmal 18.33%.
7. A student of law becomes equipped to appear for the
examinations only by attending classes and engaging in
curricula related activities like moot courts, seminars, debates
etc. Even though the requirement of minimum attendance can
be relaxed in deserving cases, doing away the requirement
completely will definitely affect the quality of education and
lead to indiscipline. Therefore, I am constrained to respectfully
differ with the views of the High Court of Delhi as regards the
requirement of minimum attendance and the direction that no
student enrolled in any recognised law college shall be detained
from taking examinations on the ground of lack of minimum
attendance. The direction of the High Court of Delhi, though
made applicable to institutions imparting education in law
across India, does not take away the jurisdiction vested with
2026:KER:220
this Court to come to a different conclusion in view of Article
226(2) of the Constitution of India. In reaching such conclusion
this Court is also guided by the various decisions rendered by
the Apex Court on the limited scope of interference by writ
courts in academic matters.
For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is
dismissed.
sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
sj
2026:KER:220
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 48465 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF TIME TABLE OF THE 9TH
SEMESTER LLB OF KERALA UNIVERSITY
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUE TO THE
FATHER OF THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENTS ON11/11/2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON
30/11/2025
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO THE
REGISTRAR KERALA UNIVERSITY ON
27/11/2025
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY
REGISTRAR ,UNIVERSITY OF KERALA ON
6/11/2025
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED
10/12/2025
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY
PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON
27/11/2025
Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED
TO PETITIONER DATED 13/02/2022
Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER ON 11/08/2025
Exhibit P10 COPY OF THE LETTER OF CON-DONATION OF
SHORTAGE OF ATTENDANCE STUDENT OF THE
COLLEGE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENTS BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF FEE BY
THE PETITIONER FOR THE 9TH SEMESTER TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY DATED
12/11/2025
2026:KER:220
Exhibit P12 COPY OF THE REGULATION OF RELEVANT PAGE
OF THE CLASS FOR EACH COURSE ,SEMESTER
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
UNIVERSITY
