Sympathy can’t override rules: Kerala High Court rejects student’s plea against short attendance

The student had earlier approached the High Court after she was not permitted to register for her examination, which was scheduled to begin on March 9, 2026. She argued that the college had committed serious errors while marking and calculating her attendance and that the missing attendance entries were not in consonance with her actual attendance. In March, the High Court had directed the authorities to provisionally register her for the examination and permitted her to approach the Board of Adjudication for Student Grievances (BASG).

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed the student’s plea.

However, the BASG subsequently rejected her appeal, prompting her to approach the High Court again.

The senior counsel for the student argued that the college authorities failed to mark the attendance legitimately and even deliberately omitted to provide her attendance to consciously defeat her. It was further submitted that the college authorities themselves had practically conceded that there were mistakes in marking the attendance.

On the other hand, the University told the court that the entire records were examined by BASG, but since it did not reveal any incongruity, warranting an interference with the decision of the college regarding shortage of attendance, the appeal was rejected.

Court’s findings

The court found that before issuing the order, BASG had called for the details of attendance and did not find any irregularity in the attendance marked by the college. It noted that the percentage of attendance received by the petitioner was between 59 percent to 69 percent which, according to the respondents, was far below the condonable limit.

The court noted that the student has no allegation of malafides against the college management and hence there was no reason to pick the petitioner alone, out of the entire batch, to be subjected to an unfair treatment. It further observed that the scope of interference by the court under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of the academic authority, is limited.

“Even the appellate authority, after perusing the records, did not find any reason to discard the version of the college authorities that the petitioner did not have sufficient attendance. This Court also does not find any reason to disbelieve the contention of the college authorities,” it said.

Observing that sympathy cannot override statutory rules, the court dismissed the student’s plea.