Kerala High Court: In two writ petitions arising from the tragic death of a 21-year-old student, who had been subjected to physical abuse and a public trial, amounting to ragging, the Single Judge Bench of D.K. Singh, J. expressed grave concern over the ineffectiveness of the UGC Anti-ragging Regulations. Despite being stringent, these regulations failed to deter unruly student behavior. The Court, therefore, recommended that the State enact a more stringent law, prescribing severe punishments for ragging activities in educational institutions. This law would be aimed at curbing the menace of ragging and preventing further loss of life caused by the rowdy conduct of undisciplined students. The State was urged to ensure that the guilty parties faced appropriate punishment.
The Court also directed that the University must proceed with departmental proceedings against the Dean and the Assistant warden (petitioners) and complete them expeditiously, ideally within three months.
Additionally, the Court emphasised the necessity for the University to take appropriate action against the students responsible for the death of the deceased, ensuring that those responsible are held accountable for the tragic incident.
Background
Petitioner 2, the Dean of the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences at Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (‘KVASU’), also served as the Warden of the Undergraduate Men’s Hostel. Petitioner 1 was the Assistant Warden of the same hostel. On 18-02-2024, a second-year BVSc and AH student, aged around 21, was found hanging in the bathroom of the UG Men’s Hostel.
Following the incident, a complaint, along with information from students via the UGC Anti-ragging helpline, was forwarded to the Dean, and a copy was sent to the Vice Chancellor. An anti-ragging squad investigated and confirmed that the deceased student had been subjected to physical abuse and a public trial, which amounted to ragging. The report held both the Dean and the Assistant Warden responsible for administrative lapses and failure to enforce anti-ragging rules.
Initial Actions and Suspension:
As a result, the Vice Chancellor sought explanations from the petitioners for their failure to maintain discipline among hostel inmates. Upon receiving unsatisfactory responses from the petitioners, the Vice Chancellor placed them under suspension on 05-03-2024. An Enquiry Memo issued on 02-04-2024 accused the petitioners of violating hostel rules and failing to act on the misconduct of students. The petitioners were given fifteen days to submit a response, which they did.
Three-member Inquiry Committee and Findings:
A three-member Inquiry Committee was constituted to investigate the administrative lapses. The Committee’s report held the petitioners jointly responsible for failing to provide a safe campus environment and adequately discharge their duties. On 28-03-2024, the Chancellor, after reviewing the situation and the report, decided to appoint Justice A. Hariprasad (former Judge of the Kerala High Court) to lead a Commission of Inquiry. This inquiry aimed to investigate the administrative failures and the authorities’ inability to prevent ragging, along with other criminal activities on the university campus.
The Commission’s report was critical of the Vice Chancellor, noting that prior incidents of ragging, which occurred during his tenure, went unnoticed and unpunished, despite some faculty members being aware of them. The report also highlighted the lack of coordination between the Vice Chancellor, the Dean, and the teaching staff.
Petitioner’s Legal Action:
Petitioner 1 filed for a writ of prohibition, seeking to prevent the respondents from acting on the Commission of Inquiry report and the Three-member Inquiry Report. Additionally, Petitioner 1 sought to quash the communication dated 12-08-2024, which directed necessary action under Section 9(7)(iii) of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 2010.
Further Developments:
On 18-09-2024, the Registrar informed the petitioners about the formation of a Commission of Inquiry by the Governor. Despite earlier decisions, the Board of Management held a Special Meeting on 12-09-2024 and decided to withdraw its previous stance, proceeding according to the Chancellor’s instructions.
The Vice Chancellor subsequently directed that the matter be placed before the Management Council for final consideration on 24-09-2024. On 27-09-2024, the Office of the Chancellor communicated to the Vice Chancellor that the decision regarding the petitioners’ reinstatement and transfer be held in abeyance until further orders. The Vice Chancellor was instructed to provide an updated report on the matter.
Analysis
The Court emphasised that the menace of ragging in educational institutions persists despite the Supreme Court’s repeated directives in Vishwa Jagriti Mission v. Central Government, (2001) 6 SCC 577. In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court defined ragging as any disorderly conduct, whether verbal or written, or by an act that causes rudeness, teasing, or mistreatment of another student. Ragging includes rowdy or indisciplined activities that lead or are likely to lead to annoyance, hardship, psychological harm, or the instillation of fear or apprehension in a fresher or junior student. Additionally, ragging can involve compelling a student to perform acts or tasks they would not ordinarily do, thereby inducing feelings of shame or embarrassment, which adversely impact the physical or psychological well-being of the fresher or junior student.
The Court expressed its dismay that, despite the Supreme Court’s clear concern in Vishwa Jagriti Mission (supra), very little had been done to prevent the persistent issue of ragging in educational institutions. To address this, the Supreme Court decided to take more concrete action by constituting a Committee headed by R.K. Raghavan, the former Director of the CBI. The Committee was tasked with making recommendations on how existing laws and provisions in various States could be more effectively implemented to eliminate the menace of ragging.
Regulations of the University Grants Commission on curbing the menace of Ragging
The Court noted that the University Grants Commission (‘UGC’) had framed comprehensive Regulations aimed at curbing the menace of ragging in higher educational institutions. These regulations laid down clear guidelines for punishing students involved in ragging activities, with specific consequences for institutions that fail to take effective measures to prevent ragging.
Clause 9 of the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009 outlines the responsibilities of educational institutions. It specifies that the Head of the Institution must take prompt and appropriate action against individuals whose dereliction of duty contributes to or leads to incidents of ragging.
The Court highlighted that, despite the recommendations made by the Raghavan Committee Report, the Supreme Court’s directions, and the comprehensive UGC Regulations, the menace of ragging remains unchecked. This persistent issue culminated in the tragic death of a young, promising student, who lost his life at the tender age of 21, in what could have been an avoidable incident.
The Court expressed its dismay that, despite the findings of the Three-member Inquiry Committee, which held the petitioners guilty of dereliction of their duties, no effective action had been taken to date. The inaction was largely due to procedural or technicalities, which prevented meaningful accountability.
The Court was particularly shocked by the insensitivity of the University authorities in addressing the findings of the Three-member Committee report. Despite the serious lapses attributed to the petitioners and the Vice Chancellor (who was also found guilty in the Commission’s report), no appropriate steps had been taken to hold them accountable. This lack of decisive action left the Court in a state of disbelief, underlining the systemic failure to act upon established findings and prevent such tragic occurrences in the future.
The Court noted that the Chancellor’s powers are clearly defined under Section 9 of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 2010. According to this provision, the Chancellor holds significant authority within the University. The Chancellor is empowered to take action against the Vice Chancellor and can initiate investigations into any matter pertaining to the University. As the highest authority of the University, the Chancellor possesses overarching powers over all other authorities and bodies within the institution.
The Court observed that the University’s reliance on the letter written by the Chancellor on 12-08-2024, as a reason for not proceeding with disciplinary action against the petitioners, appeared to be a mere ruse to cover up the petitioners’ misdeeds, dereliction of duty, and inaction. These failures directly contributed to the tragic loss of a young, promising student’s life.
The Court clarified that the letter dated 12-08-2024 did not, in any way, restrain the University from continuing disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. Instead, it simply called for a report and a decision from the Board of Management, which the Board is legally obligated to submit to the Chancellor. Therefore, the Court emphasised that the University had no legitimate reason to halt the proceedings and was duty-bound to take appropriate action based on the findings of the inquiry and its own internal obligations.
Decision
The Court concluded that the University’s decision to withhold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners, who had been prima facie found guilty by both the Three-member Committee and the Commission of Inquiry, was incorrect, untenable, and contrary to the provisions of the University Act and its Statutes. The Court held that the claim of the highest authority intervening was baseless and did not justify halting the proceedings.
The Board of Management had also misinterpreted the letter dated 24-09-2024 from the Office of the Vice Chancellor. The interpretation placed on the powers of the Chancellor was found to be inconsistent with the express provisions of the University Act. The Board of Management was obligated to implement the Chancellor’s directions, yet the University’s decision to reinstate and transfer the petitioners, despite their guilt, was deemed unjustified, insensitive, and contrary to the Chancellor’s directives.
In light of this, the Court directed that the University proceed with the departmental proceedings against the petitioners and finalize them expeditiously, preferably within three months. The petitioners were instructed to fully cooperate in these proceedings.
Further, the Court stressed the need for the University to take appropriate action against the students responsible for the tragic death of the deceased, ensuring accountability for the incident.
The Court also expressed concern that, while the UGC Anti-ragging Regulations were stringent, they had not been effective in deterring unruly student behavior. The Court recommended that the State enact a more stringent law with severe punishments for ragging activities in educational institutions. This law would aim to curb the menace and prevent further loss of life due to the rowdy behavior of undisciplined students. The State was urged to ensure that the guilty parties face appropriate punishment.
Finally, with these directions, the writ petitions were disposed of, and all interlocutory applications related to interim matters were closed.
[DR. Kanthanathan R v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 4389. Decided on 25-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners: SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SHRI.G.HARIHARAN SMT.K.S.SMITHA SHRI.AMAL DEV D SMT.SNEHA M.S. SHRI.ABHIJITH E.R., BY ADV SHRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN
For Respondents: SR GP PREMCHAN R NAIR SRI.MANU GOVIND SHRI.S.PRASANTH, SC, CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES OF KERALA SMT.NISHA GEORGE SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.KAVYA VARMA M. M.
