Madras HC Upholds Expulsion of LL.B Students Who Kidnapped a Classmate and Demanded Rs 2 Lakh Ransom

The Madras High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal by two LL.B students expelled by VISTAS after an FIR was lodged against them for kidnapping a fellow student and demanding ransom, holding that the gravity of the crime left nothing to be referred to a disciplinary committee.

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, on 6 July 2026 dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by two LL.B students against their expulsion from Vels Institute of Science Technology and Advanced Studies (VISTAS), Chennai. The students had been expelled on 11 July 2025 after a criminal case was registered against them for kidnapping a fellow student and demanding a ransom of Rs 2 lakhs. The Division Bench found that the gravity of the offence, the college's code of conduct, and the need to ensure a safe environment for other students left no infirmity in either the expulsion order or the Single Judge's decision dismissing the challenge to it.

The Kidnapping Case and the Expulsion

The two appellants, U. Dinesh Kumar and Absar Ali M., were enrolled in the LL.B programme at VISTAS. On 9 July 2025, F2 Egmore Police Station, Chennai, registered Crime No. 518/2025 against them and one other person for offences under Sections 140(2) and 142 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR alleged that they had kidnapped Mohammed Rafiq, a student of the same college, and demanded Rs 2 lakhs for his release.

Two days after the FIR was registered, VISTAS issued an expulsion order dated 11 July 2025, removing the appellants from the students' roll and directing them to collect their transfer certificates. The college acted on the basis of the gravity of the offence and the fact that the alleged victim was a co-student.

Single Judge's Dismissal and the Intra-Court Appeal

The appellants challenged the expulsion order before a Single Judge in W.P. No. 33286 of 2025. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 6 October 2025, accepting that the offence was a grave one involving kidnapping of a fellow student, that the case was under investigation, and that it constituted a clear violation of the college's code of conduct.

Aggrieved, the appellants filed W.A. No. 632 of 2026 under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, seeking to set aside both the Single Judge's order and the expulsion order, and asking that they be permitted to continue their legal education pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case.

Arguments Before the Division Bench

Counsel for the appellants, Mr T. Jeyaram, advanced two main contentions. First, that mere registration of an FIR is not sufficient to sustain an extreme order of expulsion, and that the college ought to have referred the matter to an internal committee. A decision could only have followed a committee report. Second, that the Single Judge had erroneously treated involvement in a criminal case as automatically warranting expulsion, and that the expulsion order was passed without affording the appellants any opportunity to be heard.

Counsel for VISTAS, Mr V. Meenakshi Sundaram, countered that the appellants had committed a heinous crime against a student of the very same institution, which received wide adverse publicity. The college, he submitted, was bound to act immediately in the interest of the institution and its students. He pointed the court to the college's code of conduct, which expressly authorises expulsion where a student is involved in any misconduct — including off-campus activity — that affects the institution's interests and the safety of its students.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The bench examined the code of conduct and ethics for students of VISTAS. Clause 3.3 requires all students to uphold academic integrity and respect the rights, property, and safety of all persons. Clause 3.4 requires students to refrain from any misconduct, including off-campus activity that substantially affects the university's interests and reputation. The code also covers intentional damage to property and any form of harassment, and it explicitly permits permanent expulsion as a punishment.

The bench held that once the crime of kidnapping a co-student was registered, the college had a duty to act and to ensure a free and conducive environment for the remaining students. It observed that “the students cannot attend college courses in a state of limbo and fear.”

The bench addressed the contention that a committee inquiry was mandatory. It reasoned that when an FIR has been registered for kidnapping another student and demanding ransom, the gravity of the offence is self-evident from the record. In those circumstances, it found, “nothing remains to be enquired by a Committee, when the code of conduct permits expulsion.” The college's code vested it with the authority to expel, and the bench was satisfied that the college exercised that authority in direct response to a heinous act directed at its own student body.

The bench did not disturb the Single Judge's finding that the offence was grave and the investigation ongoing at the time the expulsion was ordered. It found no error or infirmity in the writ court's approach.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed W.A. No. 632 of 2026 with no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous application, C.M.P. No. 6002 of 2026, was closed as a consequence. The expulsion order dated 11 July 2025 and the Single Judge's order dated 6 October 2025 both stand.