A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 (Act 8 of 2015), Sections 14 & 28 – A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technological University First Statutes, 2020, Chapter III, Statute 10 – Powers of Vice-Chancellor – Meetings of the Syndicate – Vice-Chancellor’s power to call off a meeting – Validity of meeting continued by members after being called off.
View Judgment: 2025 (8) KLR 251
Facts: The Vice-Chancellor of the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University convened the 63rd meeting of the Syndicate. During the meeting, some members insisted on including an additional item in the agenda, which was not originally listed. Following persistent arguments, the Vice-Chancellor declared the meeting closed and left, without transacting any of the scheduled business. Subsequently, a majority of the members present elected one among them as chairperson and continued the meeting, passing several resolutions. The Vice-Chancellor later issued an order annulling the decisions taken in this subsequent meeting, deeming it illegal. Two writ petitions were filed by members of the Syndicate challenging the Vice-Chancellor’s actions of calling off the meeting and annulling its decisions, and seeking implementation of the resolutions passed. The petitioners contended that under the University First Statutes, members could continue a meeting in the absence of the Vice-Chancellor by electing a chairperson. The Vice-Chancellor argued that the continued meeting was not validly convened as per the Act and that he had the authority to call off the meeting under emergent circumstances. A challenge to the locus standi of a Syndicate member to file the writ petition was also raised.
Issues:
- Whether the Vice-Chancellor has the power to call off a duly convened Syndicate meeting after it has commenced.
- Whether a meeting continued by the remaining members of the Syndicate, after it was called off by the Vice-Chancellor, can be considered a valid meeting under the Act and Statutes.
- Whether the Vice-Chancellor has the power to annul decisions taken in such a continued meeting.
- Whether a member of the Syndicate has the locus standi to file a writ petition challenging the decision of the Vice-Chancellor as a “person aggrieved”.
Held:
- Dismissing one writ petition and partly allowing the other, the Court held that the Vice-Chancellor, as the authority empowered to convene meetings, possesses the power to call off a meeting that has already commenced, provided the action is bona fide. This power is inherent in the statutory authority responsible for convening and conducting the meeting, especially in situations of disruption or disorder. The Court should grant a certain amount of discretion to the Vice-Chancellor in such matters and will not sit in appeal over the decision, unless it is proven to be mala fide.
- A meeting held by some members of the Syndicate after the Chairperson (the Vice-Chancellor) has officially called it off is not a validly convened meeting as per Section 28 of the Act. The statutory scheme requires a Syndicate meeting to be convened by the Registrar on the direction of the Vice-Chancellor. Allowing members to hold a meeting on their own, merely because they meet the quorum, would lead to chaotic situations and undermine the structured functioning of the University. Statute 10 of the First Statutes, which allows for electing a chairperson “in the absence of the Vice-Chancellor,” does not apply to a situation where the Vice-Chancellor has actively exercised his authority to end the meeting. An interpretation that permits members to continue a closed meeting would lead to serious mischief.
- Since the meeting held by the members after it was called off by the Vice-Chancellor was not a valid meeting of the Syndicate, the decisions taken therein are void. Consequently, the Vice-Chancellor’s subsequent order annulling those decisions is not illegal.
- On the question of locus standi, the Court opined that it would not be in the interests of justice to hold that Syndicate members are not persons interested in or aggrieved by the cancellation of a decision which they contend is a valid decision of the Syndicate. However, the Court did not definitively decide this issue as the petitions were resolved on other grounds.
B. Constitution of India, Article 348(3) – Kerala Official Languages Act, 1969, Section 2 – Authoritative Text of Laws – Requirement of English Translation.
Held:
Article 348(3) of the Constitution mandates that where a State Legislature prescribes a language other than English for its Acts, Ordinances, rules, or regulations, an English translation published under the authority of the Governor in the Official Gazette shall be deemed to be the authoritative text. For proceedings in the High Court, the authoritative text must be in English. The Court expressed its dismay that the A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technological University First Statutes, 2020, were framed in Malayalam and, even five years later, no authoritative English translation had been published as required by the Constitution. The Court reiterated the constitutional obligation of the State and Legislature to publish English translations simultaneously with the vernacular text, stressing its importance for accessibility, especially for a technological university aiming to be a global education hub. While the absence of an English text does not render the law non est, it creates a situation where there is no authoritative text available for the High Court to rely on as per the constitutional mandate.
