State Must Frame Stringent Law Providing Severe Punishment For Ragging Activities In Educational Institutions: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court was deciding two Writ Petitions out of which one was filed by the Dean of the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has emphasized that the State must frame a stringent law providing severe punishment for ragging activities in educational institutions.
The Court emphasized thus in two Writ Petitions out of which one was filed by the Dean of the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (KVASU), who was also the Warden of the Men’s Hostel of KVASU.
A Single Bench of Justice D.K. Singh observed, “This Court is of the view that though the UGC Anti-ragging Regulations are stringent, they have not deterred the unruly behaviour and conduct of the students. The Regulations are not enough to curb the ragging activity in its entirety. The State, therefore, must frame a stringent law providing severe punishment for ragging activities in educational institutions to stop this menace so that no other student loses his/her life for the unruly, rowdy conduct by the undisciplined students. The State shall also make sure that the guilty found does not go unpunished.”
Advocates P.C. Sasidharan and Sneha M.S. appeared for the Petitioners while Senior Advocates P. Sreekumar, George Poonthottam, Senior Government Pleader (SGP) Premchand R. Nair, Standing Counsel S. Prasanth, Manu Govind, and Advocate Nisha George appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
One student namely Sidharthan J.S., a second-year BVSc and AH course of the College, aged around 21 years as on the date of the incident, was found hanging in the bathroom of the dormitory of the Undergraduate Men’s Hostel in the College Campus on February 18, 2024. The complaint and information received from some students at the College by the UGC Anti-ragging helpline was transmitted to the Dean of the college, with a copy to the Vice Chancellor. An anti-ragging squad of the College investigated the case, and its report confirmed that the deceased student was subjected to brutal physical abuse and public trial by a section of students, which amounted to ragging. The report of the anti-ragging squad confirmed his ragging, holding the Dean and the Assistant Warden responsible for administrative lapses and failure in observing the Rules and Regulations prohibiting ragging in Higher Education Institutions.
Accordingly, the Vice-Chancellor (VC) called for an explanation from Dr. M.K. Narayanan and Dr. R. Kanthanathan i.e., the Petitioners, who were the Dean and the Assistant Warden respectively, having immediate responsibility to ensure the right behaviour and maintain discipline of the hostel inmates. A three-member Inquiry Committee was constituted by the VC of the University to inquire into the alleged administrative lapses on the part of the Petitioners, leading to the death of the student. As the replies by them were not satisfactory to the VC, orders were issued to place them under suspension. The Committee concluded that the Petitioners failed to provide a secure and safe campus life for the students. The Chancellor appointed Justice A. Hariprasad (former Judge of Kerala High Court) as the Commission of Inquiry, who held responsible the VC, besides the Petitioners.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “… on the spacious grounds taken by the University based on the letter written by the Chancellor on 12.08.2024 for not proceeding against the petitioners is a ruse to cover up the misdeed, dereliction of duty and inaction of the petitioners, which have resulted in the tragic incident of a young and promising student losing his life.”
The Court added that the said letter does not in any manner restrain the University from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner but it only calls for the report and the decision of the Board of Management, which the Board of Management is obliged and duty-bound to furnish to the Chancellor.
“This Court is of the view that the letter dated 12.08.2024 does not in any manner restrain the University from proceeding against the petitioners who have been prima facie found guilty by the Three-member Committee constituted by the Chairman on the incident as well as the Commission of Inquiry. The decision of the University to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance on the spacious ground that the highest authority has intervened is absolutely incorrect, untenable and against the scheme of the University Act and the Statutes of the University”, it remarked.
The Court further noted that the Board of Management has wrongly construed the letter written by the Office of the Vice Chancellor, and such an interpretation placed on the provisions of the University Act and the powers of the Chancellor is contrary to the express provision itself.
“The Board of Management is obliged to implement the directions issued by the Chancellor. The University’s decision, in its Board of Management meeting held on 24.09.2024 [Ext.P17], to reinstate the petitioners and transfer them to Thiruvazhamkunnu College of Avian Science and Management, despite them having been found guilty by a Three-member Committee, is unjustified, insensitive and against the directions issued by the Chancellor”, it also said.
The Court, therefore, directed the University to proceed against the Petitioners in departmental proceedings and finalise the same expeditiously in accordance with the law, preferably within three months.
“The petitioners are directed to fully co-operate in the disciplinary proceedings. … The University must ensure appropriate action against the erring students who would have been found responsible for the incident in which Sidharthan J S, a second-year BVSc and AH course of the College, lost his life in the prime of his youth”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions and issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- Dr. Kanthanathan R. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:46803)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates P.C. Sasidharan, Sneha M.S., Praveen H., G. Hariharan, K.S. Smitha, Amal Dev D., and Abhijith E.R.
Respondents: Senior Advocates P. Sreekumar, George Poonthottam, SGP Premchand R. Nair, Standing Counsel S. Prasanth, Manu Govind, Advocates Nisha George, and Kavya Varma M.M.
