Kerala High Court Permits Students to Write Exams, Says College Failed to Conduct Required Classes

In Vaibhav Y Kini & Ors. v. Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors., the Kerala High Court stepped in to protect law students who were stopped from writing their examinations due to attendance shortage. The Court found that the college’s own failure to hold the required number of working days had placed the students at a serious disadvantage.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas examined the issue in the context of students from the 3-year and 5-year LL.B courses at St. Dominic’s College of Law, which is affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University. Nine students had approached the High Court after being denied the chance to sit for their exams.

The students argued that the college had conducted only 71 working days during the second semester. Under the applicable university regulations, at least 90 working days were required. Because the semester was cut short, the students said they lost the opportunity to improve their attendance and possibly reach the required percentage.

The High Court accepted the substance of this grievance. It noted that the college was under an obligation to complete the minimum number of classes and working days before scheduling the examination. Since that did not happen, the students could not be blamed entirely for the attendance shortage.

The Court observed, “This Court bears in mind the fact that the college had failed to conduct the minimum number of hours before scheduling the examination, which it is was bound to do. Had the college carried out the minimum number of hours and working days, there was every chance for the students to make up for the shortage in attendance and even achieve the minimum percentage of attendance or at least fall within the condonable limit.”

It further said, “Therefore, petitioners have been prejudiced on account of the omission of the college to conduct the minimum number of working days,” making it clear that institutional failure had directly affected the students’ academic rights.

During the pendency of the case, five of the petitioners were allowed to write their examinations. The remaining three students were found to be within the condonable limit of attendance shortage. On October 9, 2025, the Court had already directed the college and the controller of examinations to provisionally accept their examination fees.

In the final judgement delivered on March 12, the High Court made that interim relief absolute. It allowed the three students to continue with the benefit granted earlier, recognising that the college could not deny them relief after failing to meet its own academic obligations.

The ruling is important for law students and educational institutions alike. It sends a clear message that attendance rules cannot be enforced in isolation when the institution itself has not complied with mandatory teaching requirements. The judgement reinforces that fairness in academic administration remains a key part of the rule of law.