Kerala High Court
Dr.Antony Thomas vs V.M.Muhammed Rafique on 18 July, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/27TH ASWINA, 1939
Con.Case(C).No. 1806 of 2017 (S) IN WP(C).1624/2014
-----------------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1624/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
18-07-2014
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):
---------------------------------
DR.ANTONY THOMAS,
S/O.THOMAS, AGED 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PULLANKALAM HOUSE,
FATHIMAPURAM P.O.,
PRINCIPAL, KURIAKOSE ELIAS COLLEGE,
MANNANAM,
KOTTAYAM - 686 561.
BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJI THOMAS
SMT.RAHANA JOSE
SRI.JEN JAISON
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
------------------------------
1. V.M.MUHAMMED RAFIQUE,
S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, COLLECTORATE P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 002.
2. C.J.MARTIN,
S/O.JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ETTUMANOOR,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 631.
3. M.S.SHIBU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
GANDHI NAGAR,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 008.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
COC 1806/2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.7.2014 IN
W.P.(C) NO.1624 OF 2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
ANNEXURE A2: TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING STUDENTS BLOCKING THE
ENTRY TO THE PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE BY LOCKING THE
DOOR, STAGING DHARNA IN FRONT OF THE OFFICE, FIXING
FLAG OF SFI ON THE TOP OF THE COLLEGE BUILDING,
MAKING OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FREE INGRESS AND EGRESS
OF STUDENTS INCLUDING THE WOMEN FOLK, BROKEN WINDOW
GLASSES OF THE RINCIPAL'S ROOM
ANNEXURE A3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED 11.10.2017
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
VPS PS TO JUDGE
"C.R."
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. &
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.
----------------------------------------------
Contempt Case (C) No.1806 OF 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of October, 2017
JUDGMENT
-------------
Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.
1.This Court in the case of Sojan Francis v. M.G.University (2003 KHC 458) and in the case of S.N.M. College v. S.I. of Police (2007 (1) KLT 282) had held thus:
"8. We find in spite of the declaration of law laid down by this Court in Sojan Francis' case, supra that private managements and educational institutions have the right to prohibit political activities within the college campus and forbid students from organising or attending meetings other than the official ones, those directions are not being followed in some of the colleges just like in the present case. Students organisations even after the guidelines laid down by this Court in Sojan Francis' case, supra, are still creating disturbances in the college campus. We make it clear as and when complaint is received from the Management or Principal of an educational Institution in the State the police has got a duty to act and see that those students organisation be kept away from the college campus. Students Unions have no right to set up their units within the college campus. Students Federation of India or other Students Unions have no right to start their Union activities within the college campus since they are bound by the judgment of this Court. If the Union starts any such activities within the college campus in violation of the decision of this Court reported in 2003 KHC 458, and the rules framed by the University, the Management can COC No.1806/2017 2 approach the police officials who will see that such attempts are averted failing which appropriate action would be taken for contempt of Court proceedings."
2.The same principle was recently reiterated by this Court by order dated 10.10.2017 in Contempt Case (C) No.1597 of 2017. Thus, this Court has been consistently holding that educational institutions cannot be turned into a political battle ground. In an educational institution, there cannot be politics. Any individual student interested in politics is free to indulge in his interest, but, outside the educational institution. These institutions are teaching and learning institutions. The Police would be duty bound to give all assistance in the matter so that upon timely intervention, the Dharnas and Vandalism is put under control. This is what we said in paragraph 2 of our recent decision as well.
2. The next, we would like to observe is that political activities like Dharna, hunger strikes and other practices like Sathyagrah have no place in a constitutional democracy, much less in academic institutions. Anyone indulging in the said activities in an educational institution would make himself liable to be expelled and/or rusticated. Educational Institutions are meant for imparting education and not politics. By their political ambition the political parties cannot hold to ransom the educational institution or the right of the civilized students to receive education. We would only remind ourselves of what Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had said while introducing the Constitution for its adoption to the Constituent Assembly on 25.11.1949:
"If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgment we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social COC No.1806/2017 3 and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods of achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us."
3.In this matter, the complaint is that a similar order of protection was granted by this Court at the instance of the college in the year 2014. It was virtually a continuing mandamus to the Police. But they complain that on a matter of condoning shortage of attendance beyond the permissible limit, students vandalised the office of the Principal, gheraoed him for hours and SFI activists also joined them. The Police came but did not act for some time, giving opportunity to the students not only to embarrass but harass the college authorities. In this melee that had continued, outsiders also intervened and joined the students.
4.Now the learned Government Pleader submits that the Police has registered a crime on 4.10.2017 against 12 students as named by the Principal. We are almost two weeks from that date. Apart from registering the crime, nothing has been done. COC No.1806/2017 4 The learned Government Pleader states that students are not available as they are on leave preparatory to examination.
5.We are not convinced. Even if a crime have been registered for bailable offence, it does not mean that the Police will wait for the accused to come and surrender themselves. There is no explanation why the Police cannot go to the residence of the students and arrest them to be released on bail so that at least the parents of the students would know what their wards and students are up to when they are in the college.
6.The learned Government Pleader submits that Police was not a mute spectator once they were informed. We have photographs in this proceeding itself to show that how policemen are standing and watching while the students are on Dharna inside the college building. We are prima facie satisfied that Police failed to act timely and in proper manner. We would only reiterate what we have said in our recent decision. We would thus expect the Police and in particular the respondents herein, to ensure that the orders of this Court are not violated and the academic atmosphere in educational institutions are not disturbed. The educational institutions cannot be hijacked and be permitted to turn into a political COC No.1806/2017 5 battle field. It shall be the responsibility of the Police to ensure due compliance of our orders. In view of the aforesaid directions, which would be communicated by the learned Government Pleader to the concerned police officials, we close this contempt proceedings.
Sd/-
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE vps 20/10