Introduction:
The Kerala High Court has granted anticipatory bail to 17 students and activists associated with the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), who were accused of unlawfully restraining, assaulting and causing hurt to the Vice-Chancellor of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, Dr. Ciza Thomas, during a campus protest.
Justice Kauser Edappagath passed the order on September 11, 2026, allowing the anticipatory bail applications filed by the students in connection with the crime registered by the Kalady Police. The petitioners had approached the High Court after the Sessions Court, Ernakulam rejected their plea for protection from arrest.
The case arose out of a series of protests allegedly conducted by SFI activists and students against what they described as administrative shortcomings at the University. According to the petitioners, the protests had been continuing peacefully since July 22 and the alleged incident occurred on the 23rd day of the campaign.
The prosecution, however, alleged that the protest crossed the limits of lawful demonstration on August 13. It was alleged that the petitioners and other SFI activists unlawfully assembled at the University’s Administrative Block and conducted a symbolic funeral procession of Vice-Chancellor Dr. Ciza Thomas by following Christian religious rites. The prosecution further alleged that later that day, when the Vice-Chancellor, her staff members and members of the Syndicate were leaving the campus after attending a Syndicate meeting, they were wrongfully restrained and confined by the protesters.
The allegations against the petitioners went beyond mere obstruction. According to the prosecution, the Vice-Chancellor was pushed and assaulted, caused hurt and had her hair grabbed during the incident. It was also alleged that her vehicle was damaged.
The police invoked several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 189(2) concerning unlawful assembly, 191(2) relating to rioting, 126(2) concerning wrongful restraint, 115(2) dealing with voluntarily causing hurt, Section 121(1) concerning voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter a public servant from performing his duty, Section 127(2) concerning wrongful confinement, Section 74 relating to assault or use of criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, Section 132 concerning assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty, and Section 190 concerning the liability of every member of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in prosecution of its common object.
The invocation of Section 74 gave the case an additional dimension because the complainant was a woman holding a public office. At the same time, the alleged conduct was said to have occurred in the larger setting of an ongoing campus protest, requiring the Court to consider the competing claims of the prosecution and the accused students while deciding whether custodial arrest was warranted at the stage of investigation.
The petitioners contended before the High Court that they were innocent and that the more serious allegations introduced subsequently by the Vice-Chancellor were an afterthought intended to victimise students who had been protesting against the University’s administration.
A significant circumstance relied upon by the petitioners was the existence of another FIR registered on the very same day, in which the Sub-Inspector himself was the de facto complainant. According to them, that earlier FIR contained allegations that the students had formed an unlawful assembly and restrained the Vice-Chancellor and Syndicate members between approximately 4:30 p.m. and 7:40 p.m., but did not contain the later allegations of assault, grabbing the Vice-Chancellor’s hair, causing hurt or damaging her vehicle.
The petitioners therefore argued that the subsequent allegations were materially different and had been introduced only after the initial police case was registered.
The High Court had already granted the petitioners interim protection from arrest on September 3. Upon further consideration, the Court proceeded to grant them anticipatory bail.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners, represented by counsel including P.K. Varghese, K.S. Arun Kumar, Jerry Mathew, Rameez M. Azeez, Devika K.R., Sawparnika Raju and Bharath R., primarily contended that the criminal proceedings had been initiated with an ulterior motive to suppress legitimate student protests.
It was submitted that the petitioners had been conducting demonstrations against the administrative functioning of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit from July 22 onwards. According to the students, the protests were directed against various administrative shortcomings and the alleged failure of the Vice-Chancellor to address the issues raised by them.
The petitioners maintained that their campaign had been peaceful and that the alleged incident took place only on the 23rd day of the protest. Their case was that the prosecution was attempting to portray a student protest as a serious criminal occurrence by subsequently adding grave allegations against them.
A central plank of the petitioners’ argument was the existence of the earlier FIR registered on August 13 itself. They pointed out that this FIR had been registered on the basis of a complaint by the Sub-Inspector and that the police officer was allegedly present at the University campus from around 4:40 p.m.
According to the petitioners, the earlier FIR specifically referred to the formation of an unlawful assembly and the restraint of the Vice-Chancellor and Syndicate members between 4:30 p.m. and 7:40 p.m. However, it did not refer to several of the allegations that subsequently appeared in the Vice-Chancellor’s complaint.
The petitioners argued that if the alleged assault, physical violence, grabbing of hair and damage to the vehicle had actually taken place in the presence of police personnel, the absence of those allegations from the first FIR assumed considerable significance.
They therefore questioned the subsequent introduction of the more serious allegations and submitted that the same demonstrated that the complaint by the Vice-Chancellor was motivated by vengeance against the protesting students.
The petitioners specifically characterised the additional allegations as an “after thought” and alleged that they had been introduced with a “malicious intention to wreak vengeance and pressurize the students and SFI activists” because of their continued protests against the University’s administration.
They further relied upon the alleged three-day delay in lodging the complaint and registering the FIR based upon the Vice-Chancellor’s allegations. According to the petitioners, the unexplained delay, coupled with the contents of the earlier FIR, cast doubt upon the prosecution version.
The students also emphasised that the matter concerned young persons who had been participating in a campus movement. They argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and that their cooperation with the investigation could be secured without subjecting them to arrest.
The State, on the other hand, opposed the plea for anticipatory bail and relied upon the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioners.
The prosecution case was that the incident was not merely a case of students exercising their right to protest. According to the State, the accused had unlawfully assembled at the Administrative Block and conducted a symbolic funeral procession of the Vice-Chancellor in a manner allegedly intended to intimidate and humiliate her.
The prosecution further alleged that the accused subsequently obstructed the Vice-Chancellor, members of her staff and Syndicate members when they attempted to leave the University after a Syndicate meeting. The allegations included wrongful restraint and confinement, pushing and assaulting the Vice-Chancellor, causing hurt and grabbing her hair.
The prosecution also alleged that the Vice-Chancellor’s vehicle was damaged during the incident.
The offences invoked by the police were consequently not confined to unlawful assembly or obstruction. The FIR included allegations relating to rioting, hurt, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement and assault or criminal force against a woman, as well as provisions dealing specifically with the protection of a public servant from assault or criminal force while discharging official duties.
From the prosecution’s perspective, the seriousness of these allegations warranted investigation and justified the apprehension that custodial protection could hamper the process of investigation.
The State’s case therefore proceeded on the basis that the Court ought to take into account the nature and gravity of the accusations rather than treat the matter simply as a dispute arising out of a student protest.
However, the petitioners maintained that the seriousness of an offence alleged in an FIR cannot by itself justify arrest when the surrounding circumstances create substantial questions regarding the manner in which the allegations were subsequently introduced. They relied particularly on the contemporaneous FIR and the presence of police personnel at the campus.
The dispute before the High Court thus involved a significant distinction between the legitimacy of a protest and the alleged criminal conduct committed during such protest. While the petitioners asserted that the criminal case was being used to suppress their protest, the prosecution maintained that unlawful conduct could not be protected merely because it occurred in the course of a demonstration.
Court’s Judgment:
After considering the rival submissions, the Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to the 17 petitioners. Justice Kauser Edappagath had earlier granted interim protection from arrest to the petitioners on September 3, 2026, and the Court ultimately extended that protection by granting them anticipatory bail.
The order assumes significance because the allegations involved not merely participation in an unlawful assembly but alleged physical assault of the Vice-Chancellor and interference with public servants while they were performing their official functions.
At the stage of anticipatory bail, however, the Court was not required to conduct a full-fledged examination of the evidence or determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. The question was whether the circumstances justified custodial arrest of the petitioners while the investigation proceeded.
The petitioners’ reliance upon the contemporaneous FIR was particularly relevant to their defence. Their contention was that an FIR registered at the instance of the police officer who was allegedly present at the University during the relevant period contained only allegations concerning unlawful assembly and restraint of the Vice-Chancellor and Syndicate members.
The later complaint, according to them, introduced considerably graver allegations, including assault, causing hurt, grabbing the Vice-Chancellor’s hair and damage to her vehicle.
The petitioners therefore sought to place the two versions against each other and argued that the subsequent allegations required careful scrutiny rather than immediate custodial action.
Their argument regarding the presence of the Sub-Inspector also formed an important part of the factual background. If police personnel were already present at the campus when the alleged incident occurred, the petitioners contended, the omission of the more serious allegations from the earlier police case was a circumstance that could not be ignored while considering their request for anticipatory bail.
The petitioners further pointed to the alleged three-day delay in the complaint attributed to the Vice-Chancellor. They argued that the delay assumed significance because it followed the registration of the earlier FIR and because the subsequent complaint contained allegations of substantially greater gravity.
At the same time, the allegations against the students cannot be regarded as trivial. The prosecution alleged that the Vice-Chancellor, her staff and Syndicate members were prevented from leaving the University premises after a Syndicate meeting. It was further alleged that the Vice-Chancellor was physically assaulted and that her hair was grabbed.
The inclusion of Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita also reflected the allegation that criminal force had been used against a woman with the intention of outraging her modesty. Similarly, Sections 121(1) and 132 concern conduct directed against public servants in connection with the discharge of their duties.
These allegations necessarily required investigation. Granting anticipatory bail therefore did not amount to an acceptance of the petitioners’ version or a finding that the allegations made by the Vice-Chancellor were false.
Rather, the order operates within the established framework governing pre-arrest protection, under which the Court balances the seriousness of the accusations with the necessity of custodial interrogation, the circumstances surrounding the registration of the case, the conduct attributed to the accused and the overall requirements of a fair investigation.
The High Court’s decision also demonstrates the distinction between the right to protest and criminal liability for acts allegedly committed during a protest. Participation in a demonstration does not immunise a person from criminal prosecution if violence, wrongful confinement or assault is established. At the same time, the mere presence of an accused at a protest does not automatically establish individual culpability for every offence allegedly committed by members of a gathering.
That distinction assumes importance in a case involving Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, under which every member of an unlawful assembly may be held guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, subject to the statutory requirements.
The allegations against the petitioners were therefore required to be assessed in the context of the specific acts attributed to them and the material collected during investigation.
The petitioners’ challenge was also not based solely on a general denial. They relied upon contemporaneous circumstances, particularly the earlier police FIR, the alleged presence of police officers at the campus and the subsequent addition of allegations by the Vice-Chancellor.
The Court, after considering these circumstances, found it appropriate to grant pre-arrest protection rather than permit the petitioners to be taken into custody.
The grant of anticipatory bail means that the petitioners are protected from arrest in the concerned crime subject to the conditions imposed by the Court. Such protection does not prevent the police from continuing their investigation or from collecting evidence concerning the alleged incident.
It is also important to distinguish between bail and an adjudication on merits. The High Court’s decision at the anticipatory bail stage does not amount to an acquittal and does not determine whether the students committed the offences alleged against them. Those questions would ultimately depend upon the investigation and, if a prosecution is launched, the evidence produced before the competent court.
The case consequently presents a broader issue frequently arising in criminal proceedings connected with student and political protests: the need to preserve the space for lawful dissent while ensuring that allegations of violence or criminal intimidation are independently investigated.
Universities are spaces where students routinely express disagreement with administrative decisions, and peaceful assembly and protest form an important part of campus life. However, when allegations arise that a public official has been restrained, assaulted or subjected to criminal force, the matter necessarily moves beyond the sphere of ordinary protest.
The Court’s grant of anticipatory bail in the present case should therefore be understood as a decision on the necessity of arrest at the investigation stage rather than as judicial approval of the alleged conduct.
The detailed reasoning of the High Court will be particularly significant once the full order becomes available. Since the order presently available is the operative order granting anticipatory bail and the detailed reasoning is awaited, any further discussion of specific precedents or paragraph-wise findings would require reference to the complete order.
For now, the outcome is clear: the Kerala High Court has granted anticipatory bail to all 17 SFI activists and students accused in the Kalady Police case arising from the August 13 campus protest involving Vice-Chancellor Dr. Ciza Thomas. The petitioners, who had already received interim protection from arrest on September 3, have now secured final pre-arrest protection in Bail Application No. 5032 of 2026.
The decision leaves the criminal investigation intact while protecting the petitioners from custodial arrest. The allegations concerning unlawful assembly, rioting, wrongful restraint, hurt, wrongful confinement, assault on a woman and interference with a public servant will therefore continue to be examined in accordance with law.
The case, titled Archana P.S. and Others v. State of Kerala, has been reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 496.