UGC Regulations Not Enough; Stringent Law With Severe Punishments Needed : Kerala High Court
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom had just lately noticed that the State should body stringent anti-ragging regulation with extreme punishments for ragging in academic establishments. The Courtroom opined that although the UGC Laws are stringent, they don’t seem to be sufficient to utterly curb the follow of ragging.
The statement was made by Justice D.Ok. Singh whereas disposing of two writ petitions, which had been filed by the Dean of the Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences College (KVASU), and the Assistant Warden of the Males’s Hostel of KVASU.
The writ petitions had been filed difficult the Report of the Inquiry Fee (Exhibit P14) that held the petitioners and the Vice-Chancellor liable for administrative lapses and for not successfully curbing ragging on campus.
It was additionally prayed that no additional motion be taken towards them pursuant to Exhibit P14 report and one other report (Exhibit P9) of the three-member Committee, constituted by the Vice-Chancellor.
The Laws on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Increased Academic Establishments, 2009 was notified by the College Grants Fee (UGC) pursuant to Part 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. The intent behind the laws was to curb the menace of ragging in greater academic establishments.
Factual Background
In February, 2024, Sidharthan J.S., a 21-year-old second yr pupil of took his personal life within the Males’s Hostel of KVASU. Afterwards, college students gave complaints and data via the UGC Anti-ragging helpline, after which, data was handed on to the Dean and Vice-Chancellor. The anti-ragging squad investigated the case and confirmed that the deceased Sidharthan was subjected to brutal ragging. The anti-ragging squad additionally discovered the Dean and Assistant Hostel Warden (petitioners) liable for administrative lapses and failure to ban ragging.
A 3-member committee was constituted to inquire into stated administrative lapses. The discovering of the committee was that the petitioners had failed to supply a protected and safe campus life for college students.
Subsequently, the Chancellor of the College/the Governor appointed Hon’ble Mr Justice A. Hariprasad (former Choose of the Excessive Courtroom of Kerala) because the Fee of Inquiry to look into the executive lapse. As per the Fee of Inquiry Report, the petitioners and the Vice-Chancellor of the KVASU had been discovered liable for not stopping ragging within the campus. The Report additionally famous two different incidents of ragging that occurred on the campus however these went unnoticed and unpunished.
As per the order handed by the Vice-Chancellor, the petitioners had been positioned beneath suspension. Subsequently, one other order was handed by the College, as per the choice of the Board of Administration, directing the petitioners to look for an inquiry earlier than the VC and the School Dean. Thereafter, a choice was taken by the Board of Administration to withdraw its earlier choice and to proceed as per the choice of the Chancellor.
The Board additionally took a choice to reinstate the petitioners and switch them to Thiruvazhamkunnu Faculty of Avian Science and Administration. Thereafter, the Chancellor despatched a communication to the VC to maintain the aforesaid choice of the Board in abeyance.
Discovering
The Courtroom discovered that no efficient motion has been taken towards the petitioners but despite the fact that the three-member Committee had discovered them to be responsible of dereliction of obligation, which result in the loss of life of the coed of the College.
Although the counsel for the petitioners had urged that the Chancellor of the College had no powers to take choice in respect of disciplinary actions towards the petitioners, the Courtroom refused to just accept such a rivalry.
The Courtroom went on to state that the Chancellor had broad powers over the College and its authorities. The Chancellor even has the facility to take away, droop and dismiss each authority beneath the College, together with the Vice-Chancellor.
The realized Single Choose additionally criticized the College for conserving the disciplinary proceedings towards the petitioners in abeyance. A route was given to the College to take departmental proceedings towards the petitioners and finalise the identical inside 3 months. The petitioners had been directed to increase full co-operation within the proceedings.
Noting that there was a necessity for strict anti-ragging legal guidelines, the Courtroom noticed as follows:
“This Courtroom is of the view that although the UGC Anti-ragging Laws are stringent, they haven’t deterred the unruly behaviour and conduct of the scholars. The Laws aren’t sufficient to curb the ragging exercise in its entirety. The State, due to this fact, should body a stringent regulation offering extreme punishment for ragging actions in academic establishments to cease this menace in order that no different pupil loses his/her life for the unruly, rowdy conduct by the undisciplined college students. The State shall additionally be sure that the responsible discovered doesn’t go unpunished.”
Thus, the writ petitions had been disposed of.
Case Title: Dr. Kanthanathan R. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and Related case
Case No: WP(C) No. 33291 of 2024 and Related case
Counsel for the petitioners: Praveen H., G. Hariharan, Ok.S. Smitha, Amal Dev D., Sneha M.S., Abhijith E.R., P.C. Sasidharan
Counsel for the respondents:
State of Kerala – Senior Authorities Pleader Premchan R. Nair
Chancellor – P. Sreekumar (Sr.), S.Prasanth, SC – Chancellor Of Universities Of Kerala
KVASU and its Vice-Chancellor – Manu Govind
Counsel for the mom of deceased pupil: Nisha George, George Poonthottam (Sr.), Kavya Varma M. M.
