Allowed¶45

Ethayakannan v. the Correspondent

Writ of Mandamus – Education

Madras HC1 Aug 2025WP/20135/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ethayakannan v. The Correspondent & others, Dr.M.G.R.Educational Research and Institute / Dr.M.G.R.University, Madhuravoyal, Chennai — Madras High Court, W.P.No.20135 of 2025, decided 01.08.2025 by C.Kumarappan J. Student denied continuation of studies after arrest and bail in Cr.No.265 of 2024 (BNS provisions); college insisted on police no-objection certificate; police disclaimed any role. Mandamus under Article 226 directing readmission forthwith; exam participation per UCG regulation (as printed). Keywords: education, bail, mandamus, student admission, criminal case pending, Article 226, BNS.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed: respondents 1 to 3 directed to permit the petitioner to pursue his education forthwith, and to follow the UCG regulation for participation in exams and other aspects. No costs. ¶45

Ethayakannan Vs the Correspondent — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No. 20135 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

W.P.No.20135 of 2025

¶7

Ethayakannan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Correspondent

¶10

Dr.M.G.R.Educational Research and Institute

¶11

Dr.M.G.R.University Madhuravoyal, Chennai

¶12

The Registrar

¶13

Dr.M.G.R.Educational Research and Institute

¶14

Dr.M.G.R.University Madhuravoyal, Chennai

¶15

3.The Principal

¶16

Dr.M.G.R.Educational Research and Institute Dr.M.G.R.University Madhuravoyal, Chennai

¶17

4.The Inspector of Police

¶18

C1, Flower Bazar, Police Station, Chennai. ...Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 28.04.2025 and

¶20

1 of 6

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.No. 20135 of 2025

¶23

direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to attend the college and conduct the semester exam.

¶24

For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Mahaveer Shivaji for Mr.S. Arumugam For Respondents ... Mr.G.Nanmaran for R4 Ms.M.Amaraa for R1 to R3 Standing Counsel

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to

¶27

consider the representation dated 28.04.2025 and direct the respondents to

¶28

permit the petitioner to attend the college and conduct the semester exam.

¶29

The short facts to be considered is whether the petitioner is

¶30

permitted to continue his study at 3^rd respondent college. It is the submission of the petitioner that on 17.12.2024, there was a false case foisted against him against Sections 126(2), 296(b), 125, 309(4), 311, 351(3) of BNS in Cr.No.265 of 2024. The learned counsel further submits that he obtained bail on 04.01.2025 in Crl.MP.No.26 of 2025. Inspite of the order of bail, the 3^rd respondent did not permit him to pursue his education.

¶31

2 of 6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No. 20135 of 2025

¶34

At this juncture, the Special Government Pleader appearing for R4

¶35

would submit that it is for the University to take a call whether to admit the student or not and as far as the 4^th respondent is concerned, they have no say in this matter and they have been unnecessarily impleaded in the present writ petition.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would

¶37

submit that in view of the grave charge against the petitioner and the subsequent arrest and bail, unless the 4^th respondent give no objection certificate, they would not permit the petitioner to pursue his education.

¶38

I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

¶39

From the very submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the

¶40

respondents 1 to 3, on the face of it, they do not have any grievance to admit the petitioner to pursue his education. However, in view of the pendency of some criminal cases, they seem to have some apprehension that

¶41

3 of 6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No. 20135 of 2025

¶44

permitting the petitioner would unnecessarily cause problems to the institution. But on the other hand, the 4^th respondent has fairly submitted that they are the unnecessary party to the proceedings and 4^th respondent neither have any objection nor have any no objection to allow the petitioner to pursue his education. Therefore, this court finds that the reason assigned for denying the petitioner right to pursue his education is not reasonable. Therefore, this court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to pursue his education forthwith. In respect of allowing the petitioner to participate in exams and other aspects, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to follow the UCG regulation.

¶45