THE MENACE OF RAGGING IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND MEASURES TO CURB IT

Report of the Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India In SLP No. 24295 of 2006.


1. Background

1.01 In Special Leave Petition No. 24295 of 2006, University of Kerala vs Council of Principals of Colleges [with SLP (C) No. 24296-24299 of 2004, W.P. (Crl) No. 173/2006 and SLP (C) No. 14356/2005], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to direct that a Committee headed by Shri R.K.Raghavan, former Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) be notified to give suggestions on means of prevention of ragging in educational institutions. A copy of the notification No. F.9-98/2006.U-5 dated the 5th December, 2006 is at Annexure I. In accordance with the orders of the Apex Court, the Committee nominated by it further nominate two other members – one each from the southern and western regions.

The full composition of the Committee, after the said nominations is at Annexure II.

1.02 The terms of reference (TOR) of the Committee were to study the various aspects of ragging; to suggest means and methods of prevention of ragging; to suggest possible action that can be taken against persons indulging in ragging; and, to suggest possible action that can be taken against college/university authorities in the event of ragging.

1.03 In its Interim Order of the 27th November, 2006, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India expressed its dismay that notwithstanding the concern shown by it in Vishwa Jagriti Mission through President Vs. Central Government through Cabinet Secretary and Ors. (AIR 2001 SC 2793), “practically very little has been done to prevent the menace of ragging in educational institutions”. The Apex Court expected the present Committee to make the recommendations “as to how the provisions already enacted in several States and Statutes to be framed to prevent the menace, can effectively eliminate the menace.”

1.04 The Committee was required to submit its Report within four months i.e. by the 5th April, 2007. However, it had to request the Hon’ble Court through the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India, Shri Gopal Subramanium, to extend the date of submission by another four weeks – the additional time was needed by the Committee to collate and analyse several thousand responses it had received from students and institutions all over the country.

2. The Methodology

2.01 The Committee decided to base its report both from primary as well as secondary sources of information. The obvious stake-holders identified by the Committee were : NGOs working in the field of the anti-ragging movements, student victims of ragging and their parents, students accused of ragging and their parents, other parents, teachers and hostel wardens, Heads of institutions, authorities of universities, students - ‘‘‘freshers’’’as well as senior students, representatives of the student bodies, representatives of state and central government, press and media representatives, and other members of the general public.

2.02 It was decided to consult with all cross-sections of stake-holders through interaction at different state capitals broadly representative of the regional variations across the country. Accordingly, the Committee visited Guawahati, Kolkata, Bhopal, Mumbai, Jaipur, Kochi, Chennai, Patna, Lucknow, Hyderabad and Bangaluru. The Committee also met for consultations on two occasions in Delhi with NGOs and experts.

Annexure III gives minutes of the interactions at the places visited by the Committee. Indeed, the Committee benefited from these interactions – in particular, in understanding the reasons for the inability to root out the menace of ragging and associated corrupt practices from our higher education system.

>>>> Read More