The Supreme Court of India denied anticipatory bail to Kerala professor Dr. M.K. Ram in a Dalit student suicide case, calling his conduct inhuman. The Bench said he cannot evade accountability and must face the legal consequences.
The Supreme Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea filed by Dr. M Kodanda Ram, a professor at Kannur Dental College, in connection with a Dalit student’s suicide.
The apex court described the allegations of harassment as inhuman, highlighting that serious wrongdoing must result in consequences.
The decision comes after Dr. Ram’s appeal was turned down by the Kerala High Court.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court of India declined to grant anticipatory bail to Dr. M Kodanda Ram, a faculty member at Kannur Dental College in Kerala. The professor is facing criminal proceedings following the death of Nithin Raj, a student who took his own life on April 10.
The case involves allegations of verbal harassment, with charges that include abetment of suicide and offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. During the hearing, the court characterized the professor’s alleged behavior toward the student as “inhuman.”
The judges observed that educators hold a heightened duty of care and that such conduct if proved cannot be brushed aside.
The bench said the need to convey a clear message about how students should be treated was central to its decision, and therefore it refused to interfere with the Kerala High Court’s earlier order.
Dr. Ram had sought relief in the lower courts first. While another teacher, Dr. Sangeetha Nambiar, was granted anticipatory bail on April 25, Dr. Ram’s application was dismissed by the sessions court and later by the High Court on June 19.
Appearing for Dr. Ram, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu contended that the student’s death occurred about a month after the alleged incident. The defence also argued that other factors may have contributed to the student’s actions, including separate reports of harassment linked to a loan application.
Despite these submissions, the Supreme Court bench concluded that the alleged humiliation could have been a decisive factor that pushed the situation toward tragedy. Accordingly, it dismissed Dr. Ram’s plea and maintained the High Court’s decision.
Cases like this often draw attention not only because of individual criminal liability, but also due to their wider implications for institutional governance and the legal exposure of private educational institutions. Although the matter remains centered on the accused faculty member’s alleged role, the ruling highlights the increasing level of regulatory and societal scrutiny regarding administrative responsibility in educational settings.
The case will now proceed with further investigation and potential trial proceedings in the lower courts to assess the substance of the allegations.