INTRODUCTION
The Kerala High Court has ruled that a professor at a statutory university does not hold a public office, so a writ of quo warranto cannot be used to challenge such an appointment. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. delivered the judgment on 16 September 2026 in Dr. V. Madhu v. The Chancellor of CUSAT and Ors. (WP(PIL) No. 90 of 2026). The Bench dismissed a public interest litigation seeking removal of a Mathematics professor at the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT), and cautioned against using PILs to fight service disputes.
BACKGROUND
Dr. V. Madhu, who has taught at CUSAT since 2006, approached the High Court through a writ petition registered as a Public Interest Litigation, seeking to quash the appointment of Dr. Sasigopalan, who joined as Professor of Mathematics in 2019. Over the years, Dr. Sasigopalan rose further within the university’s governance structure, being elected as a member of the Senate and subsequently to the Syndicate . Notably, the petitioner did not challenge the appointment on grounds of statutory or regulatory violation at the time it was made, or for several years thereafter, and only moved the Court through the present PIL much later. This delay, combined with the timing of the challenge coinciding with the respondent’s rise within university bodies, became a significant factor in how the Bench viewed the true nature of the dispute.
KEY POINTS
- The Court held that the office of a Professor does not involve the delegation of any sovereign function of the government, whether executive, legislative, or judicial, and therefore falls outside the constitutional meaning of “public office”.
- Even if irregularities in such an appointment could indirectly touch public interest, the Bench observed that any such effect would be too remote to convert the post into a public office capable of being tested through quo warranto.
- The Bench drew support from the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Dr. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P. 2022 LawSuit(SC) 322, which similarly declined to treat an academic post as a public office for quo warranto purposes.
- Relying on its own precedent in G. Sasidharan v. State of Kerala 2026:KER:30901 , the Court reiterated that public interest litigations in service matters are, as a rule, not maintainable, except in the narrow category involving genuine usurpation of public office
- The Sasidharan precedent defines public office as a trust conferred by public authority for public purpose, involving tenure, duration, emoluments, and duties tied to a portion of sovereign power, a description the Bench found professorship does not satisfy.
- The Court noted that the petitioner had not questioned the appointment on any statutory ground until filing this PIL, years after the respondent’s appointment and subsequent rise to Senate and Syndicate membership.
- Based on this timeline, the Bench concluded that the litigation was essentially a private dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, filed to settle professional scores rather than to vindicate any genuine public interest.
- The petition was accordingly dismissed for want of maintainability, with the Court declining to examine the appointment on merits.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
This judgment has drawn attention among academic and legal circles for reinforcing the narrow scope within which quo warranto can be invoked against university appointments. Legal commentary following the ruling has emphasised that the decision aligns Kerala’s position with that of other High Courts, including Allahabad, in resisting attempts to convert academic service disputes into constitutional writ litigation. By tying the definition of public office tightly to sovereign functions, the Bench has signalled that petitioners cannot bypass ordinary service jurisprudence, tribunals, or internal university remedies simply by labelling a grievance as a PIL.
CONCLUSION
The decision rendered in Dr. V. Madhu v. The Chancellor of CUSAT and Ors. by the Kerala High Court upholds a well-settled but often tested principle, that not every position of authority in a public institution is a public office for constitutional purposes. The Bench has clearly demarcated the line between genuine usurpation of sovereign authority and personal or professional grievances camouflaged as public interest litigations basing its reasoning on the Sasidharan precedent and drawing parallel support from the Allahabad High Court. The judgment stands as a cautionary marker for future petitioners seeking to use quo warranto as a shortcut around ordinary service law remedies.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: HARSHMEET KAUR SUDAN
