StopRagging.org

5. Recommendations

5.01 Based on its interactions and the elaborate methodology followed by it, the
Committee is convinced that the society at large considers ragging as a
definite menace. We are equally convinced that softer options have not
worked and therefore it is time for tough measures. The Committee’s
recommendations, in terms of actions necessary, fall in six levels, namely,
schools, higher educational institutions, district administration,
universities, State authorities and Central authorities. At each level, we
recommend that the active involvement of media and the civil society is
essential in tackling the problem of ragging.
5.02 At the School level, the Committee recommends that on the same lines as
topics on environment education were introduced in the school
curriculum, the National Council of Educational Research and Training
(NCERT) and the respective State Council of Educational Research and
Training (SCERT), should devise methodologies and content for
introducing Human Rights education of which awareness against ragging
should be a compulsory part. Where inputs in Human Rights already exist,
the same should be reviewed to ensure that awareness and exposure to the
evil of ragging are highlighted in the syllabi. In the lower classes, respect
for human rights, consciousness against violating others’ rights, and
respect for privacy, diversity and equality should be discreetly grafted into
the lessons and exercises right from the primary and elementary stages of
schooling in order to inculcate the desirable value system from the
formative years of every child.

5.03 At the secondary and senior secondary stages of schooling, every school
should be required to arrange regular and periodic psychologicalcounselling
sessions for every student till the time he/she passes out from
the school. Parents and teachers should also be involved in such sessions.
Every year there should be a certain number of mandatory counselling
sessions with experienced psychologists. The Committee was informed by
experts that 20 counselling workshop/sessions were desirable each year.
Since it may not be immediately possible to avail the services of a vast
number of trained psychologists, it is recommended that the B.Ed. and
Teacher training programmes should be mandated to provide for antiragging
and human-rights appreciation inputs so that every teacher is
equipped to provide at least the rudiments of the counselling approach.

5.04 What would be desirable is that the school leaving certificate and the
character certificate categorically mentions the status of the student in
terms of his/her behavioural pattern; which should be mandatory to be
submitted at the time of admission at the institute of higher learning. This
certificate should mention whether the student has displayed persistent
violent or aggressive behaviour or any desire to harm others. It is
recommended that each State should create a pool of professional
counsellors at the level of the district, who visit each and every school in
every state to fill the obligation stated above. The District Institutes of
Educational Technology (DIETs) should be reoriented for the purpose.

5.05 The Committee endorses the view that bullying and corporal punishments
at the school level legitimize ideas of power abuse, harassment, violation of
dignity and privacy, and as such may prepare the ground for ragging at the
college level. Bullying is a phenomenon in which the students tease and
humiliate other students in various ways. Corporal punishment has been
banned by some states viz. Goa, Delhi and Tamil Nadu. Therefore,
teachers at the school level must be made conscious of this fact. The
curriculum for B.Ed. and other teacher training courses, as well as inservice
training courses for the teachers, should include topics on
sensitization against corporal punishment and checking of bullying
amongst students.

5.06 At the level of the Higher educational institutions, it should be mandatory
for the student at the time of admission to submit documentation in
respect of (i) the school leaving certificate/character certificate which will
include a report on behavioural pattern; (and, in due course include the
report by a professional counsellor). The institution may thereupon keep
intense watch upon a student who has a negative entry in this regard. (ii)
an annual undertaking to be signed by each student, whether fresher or
senior, and his/her parent(s) jointly stating that each of them have read
the relevant instructions/regulations against ragging, as well as
punishments, and that if the ward has been found guilty he/she will be
proceeded against. The UGC Committee (1999) had also recommended so
and the directions of the Apex Court also included this. While endorsing
these recommendations, we emphasize specifically the following: First, we
strongly recommend that such an undertaking should be provided in
English as well as in the vernacular (mother tongue of the parent); second,
the undertaking should be furnished at the beginning of each academic
year by every student; third, the undertaking should be obtained every
year from each student admitted to the hostel; and finally, the undertaking
should be appended to a brochure containing the guidelines and other
relevant instructions in regard to ragging and consequences of indulging
in ragging – so that there is no denial of the responsibility on the one hand,
and there is also a clear understanding of the requirement by all
concerned, including parents who may be otherwise deficient in their
facility with the English language. Merely getting an undertaking signed
from students and parents, without linking it with the information
relevant to ragging in our opinion would be ineffective, and hence our
modified recommendations.

5.07 We feel that it is extremely important that this requirement of a binding
undertaking is complied with by all institutions, and some superior level
bodies must cross-verify and vouch that there is strict compliance thereto.
This has to be ensured by the affiliating university and also verified by
bodies such as the National Assessment and Accreditation Council
(NAAC), the UGC Expert Committees, including those which visit
institutions for recognition under section 2(f) and 12(B) of the UGC Act,
AICTE’s Committees, and Committees of other statutory councils or
authorities such as the Medical Council of India (MCI), the Dental Council
of India (DCI), the Nursing Council of India (NCI) etc. At present these
bodies appear to perceive ragging merely as a disciplinary issue in which
the regulatory authorities have little or no role, and in the context of
curbing the menace of ragging appropriate directions must be given
defining their role and responsibility. Indeed, without the active
involvement of the multitude of bodies and authorities, a continuous vigil
cannot be maintained. We are constrained to remark that while ensuring a
ragging-free environment in campuses has a direct bearing on the
standards of higher education, none of the bodies responsible for
coordinating/ establishing or maintaining standards of higher education
(technical and medical etc. included) with whom we interacted, radiate the
confidence that they consider the continuing practice of ragging as
contributing to lowering of the standards.

5.08 The University Grants Commission and the statutory bodies such as the
AICTE, MCI, DCI, NCI, ICAR as well as affiliating universities and
Directorates of Higher, Technical, Agricultural and Medical etc. Education
of State Governments, must make it mandatory and ensure that each
institution compulsorily incorporates in the ‘prospectus’ and in other
admission related documents, the earlier directions or any future
directions of the Apex Court and/or of the Central or State Governments
as applicable, so that candidates and their parents are sensitized in respect
of the prohibition and consequences of ragging. Non-compliance with the
directives against ragging in any manner whatsoever shall be considered
as lowering of academic standards by the errant institution. The regulatory
authorities must proceed against such errant institutions by imposing the
prescribed penalties already provided under their respective
statutes/regulations etc. which they would otherwise have exercised in
matters of lowering of academic standards.

5.09 Just as there ought to be disincentives as mentioned in paragraph 5.08
above for failure to prevent ragging, there should be incentives to
institutions for curbing it. By way of incentives, the Central Government,
State Governments, University Grants Commission and other funding
bodies such as the AICTE and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research
etc. should provide special/additional annual financial grants-in-aid to
those of the universities and colleges, which report a blemish-less record
in terms of there being no incidents of ragging. These bodies should also
institute another category of financial awards or incentives for colleges or
universities which take stringent action against those responsible in
respect of ragging incidents. This would overcome the present problem of
institutions covering up incidents for fear of adverse impact on reputation.

5.10 The Committee notes that while there have been some isolated efforts at
publicizing the concern and ban in respect of ragging, it could not come
across any meaningful advertisement campaign through the various news
media, either nationally or regionally, despite the 2001 direction of the
Apex Court. This indicates a general apathy and a failure to sensitize
society. The entire approach to ragging appears to be viewed as a seasonal
issue, to be attended to only during the admission time and put on the
back-burner after the heat and dust of admissions settle down. We
recommend that there has to be a concerted effort on the part of Central
and State Governments as well as the universities in publicizing the ills of
ragging and in sensitizing and building public opinion.

5.11 We have described the need to launch effective advertisement campaigns
at the national and regional level – the Central Government through the
Directorate of Audio Visual Publicity (DAVP) and the State Governments
through their Directorates of Information or Public Relations have the
primary responsibility in this regard. This apart, multi-pronged
campaigns have to be launched and sustained by universities as well as the
institutions, locally. Extensive publicity must be undertaken by the
institution by means of creative posters, audio-visual aids, by holding
counselling sessions, workshops, painting and design competitions among
students and other methods as it deems fit. We came across a number of
initiatives by institutions, one such effort forms the back cover of our
report.

5.12 The Committee recommends that it is critical that institutions promote a
sense of confidence among every student entering the portals of higher
education. It is important that the natural anxiety among the ‘freshers’ is
addressed by institutional authorities. We recommend that there should
be a clear gap of one to two weeks between the date of joining of ‘freshers’
and the seniors, classes for the seniors should commence later. This would
enable the ‘freshers’ to familiarize themselves with the campus
environment and adjust to the sudden changeover from schools to higher
education. In addition, this period would be critical in building and
consolidating a definite sense of bonding among the ‘freshers’ who would
be better equipped to deal with the seniors with confidence acquired
during the interim. It must be ensured that senior students are not allowed
to enter the campus, including the hostels, under any pretext. The only
exception to this rule may be for a few senior students who have been
appointed by the institutional authorities for assisting in the orientation
programme. We recommend that it should be mandatory for institutions
to inform parents of senior students to send their wards only on the due
date and not earlier. This system is in practice in some institutions and the
Committee recommends that this must be implemented in all institutions.
We further recommend that every university – whether established by
Central law or State law or declared by the Central Government as an
institution deemed to be university – must compulsorily amend its
relevant Ordinances or bye-laws to ratify the schedule of the first two
weeks described above as well as in the following paragraphs. We
acknowledge that in some professional programmes – medicine and
engineering in particular – there could be some practical difficulties in
ensuring that senior students are not present on the campus when freshers
join, however we feel that if the respective Councils make a sincere effort
to adapt their academic calendar suitably this should not be such an
insurmountable problem.

5.13 We further recommend that social events such as ‘welcome parties’ or
‘freshers” day celebrations in honour of ‘freshers’ is a sound tradition that
needs to be encouraged by institutions. However, what is lamentable is
that such events which often mark the ending of ragging and beginning of
bonhomie among seniors and ‘freshers’, is scheduled only after a
prolonged bout of ragging. Therefore, we recommend that in every
institution, the ‘freshers” day or ‘ welcome party’ shall be concluded within
the first two weeks of the beginning of the academic session, that is not
later than one week after the commencement of classes for the seniors in
the context of our recommendation in 5.12 above. In any such event,
celebrating the ‘freshers” day or party, college faculty must be present and
must ensure that no ragging or untoward incident takes place on the
occasion.

5.14 We also recommend that every institution should engage or seek the
assistance of professional counsellors at the time of admissions to counsel
‘freshers’ in order to prepare them for the life ahead, particularly for
adjusting to the life in hostels. The Committee feels that preparing
students in this manner would enable them to cope with the stresses of the
hitherto unknown life in the campus.

5.15 The Committee recommends that each institution, and where required the
affiliating university, should lay down a calendar of events and activities to
facilitate and complement familiarization of juniors with the academic
environment of the institution. This calendar must be automatically
ratified under the relevant Ordinances of the affiliating university. There
should be an introductory interaction with faculty members, members of
the staff and senior students as was suggested by the UGC Committee
(1999) as well. The breakup of the orientation programme should be as
follows: (i) the head of the institution must address all fresh students on
the first day of the academic session, and the address must amongst other
issues educate them about their rights against harassment of any kind
including ragging; and all faculty members must invariably be present on
the occasion; (ii) the second orientation programme for fresh students
should be held for each course/class, during which all the respective
departmental faculty must be present. The main purpose of this
orientation would be to inculcate a sense of bonding and a feeling of
fraternity among the freshers, as well as to develop an affinity towards the
teaching faculty; (iii) the third orientation programme for fresh students
should be conducted at the level of the class/section/division; (iv) one or
more counselling sessions must be arranged through out the first week as
part of the orientation sessions, during which a professional counsellor
should address ‘freshers’ and motivate them to confidently deal with
strangers/seniors; (v) during this week each institution should organize
cultural events, sports and other activities, for ‘freshers’ to get to know
each other; there should be very little or no ‘serious’ academic activity
which digresses from the familiarization and sensitization programmes
chalked out by the institution; we also recommend that the UGC and other
funding bodies must make special allocations for the purpose of enabling
institutions to engage counsellors and organize various events that
contribute to the building of confidence among the ‘freshers’. (vi) the
institution must not only work out a variety of alternative methods of
interactions, but should also publicize the details of the orientation
programmes described above.

5.16 We recommend that on the arrival of senior students after the first week or
after the second week as the case may be, further orientation programmes
must be scheduled as follows (i) joint sensitization programme and
counselling of both ‘freshers’ and seniors by a professional counsellor; (ii)
joint orientation programme of ‘freshers’ and seniors to be addressed by
the Principal/Head of the institution, and the anti-ragging committee; (iii)
organisation on a large scale of cultural, sports and other activities to
provide a platform for the ‘freshers’ and seniors to interact in the presence
of faculty members; (iv) in the hostel, the warden should address all
students; may request two junior colleagues from the college faculty to
assist the warden by becoming resident tutors for a temporary duration;
and, the UGC and other funding bodies should provide financial grants for
meeting the expenditure on resident tutors (v) It is strongly recommended
that as far as possible faculty members should dine with the hostel
residents in their respective hostels to instill a feeling of confidence among
the fresh residents.

5.17 The Committee agrees with the views expressed by student leaders of
various ideological affiliations with whom it interacted that a thriving and
active students’ association of comprising of genuinely enrolled students
helps in minimising incidents of ragging, as each competing student group
during elections to the student body would have a vested interest in
‘protecting’ target group of fresher voters from being subjected to ragging
by others. As a matter of fact, it was repeatedly brought to the notice of the
Committee that one of the reasons for engineering and medical or
professional colleges being highly ragging prone is due to the absence of
genuine student election activity. Although much can be said in this
regard, including the evidence that ragging has slowly spread to other
types of institutions as well, we recommend that the reforms in student
body elections approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the basis of the
recommendations of the J.M.Lyngdoh Committee should be implemented
expeditiously and the students’ union election must be held within 15 days
of the beginning of the academic session. This will undermine the nexus,
reported in some places, between campus politics and ragging.

5.18 We recommend that every institution must have an Anti-Ragging
Committee and an Anti-Ragging Squad. It is essential to have a diverse
mix of membership in terms of levels as well as gender in both the Anti-
Ragging Squad as well as the Anti-Ragging Committee. The Anti-Ragging
Committee at the level of the institution should consist of the
representatives of civil and police administration, local media, Non
Government Organizations involved in youth activities, representatives of
faculty members, representatives of parents, representatives of students
belonging to the freshers’ category as well as seniors, non-teaching staff
and should be headed by the Head of the Institution. The Anti-Ragging
Squad, in contrast, should be a body with vigil, oversight and patrolling
functions and should appropriately be a smaller body which should be
nominated by the Head of the institution with such representation as
considered necessary to keep it mobile, alert and active at all times. The
Squad may be called upon to make surprise raids on hostels and other hot
spots and should be empowered to inspect places of potential ragging. The
Squad should work under the overall guidance of the Anti-Ragging
Committee. The Squad should not have any outside representation and
should only consist of members belonging to the various sections of the
campus community.

5.19 We recommend that there should also be a ‘Mentoring Cell’ in each
institution to oversee and involve senior students as Mentors for the
‘freshers’. The Mentoring Cell should be formed at the end of every
academic year where applications should be invited from students to join
the Mentoring Cell as Mentors for the succeeding academic year. There
should be as many levels or tiers of Mentors as the number of batches in
the institution. The Anti-Ragging Squad of the institution and the
Head/Principal should be involved in selecting the first level of Mentors
who would be chosen from among the batch of students immediately
senior to the ‘freshers’. A diverse mix of Mentors would be desirable who
would be selected at the ratio of one student for a certain number of
‘freshers’. It has been observed that a ratio of 1:6 is optimal. There should
be a hierarchy of Mentors, that is, for every group of six Mentors chosen
from the 2nd year or the batch immediately senior to the ‘freshers’, there
should be one second level Mentor. Then there would be one third year
student per six Mentors of the second level and so on. At every level of
Mentors, there should be a Faculty Adviser. The warden and faculty would
directly deal with the highest level of Mentors, which is not to say that they
would not interact with the other tiers of Mentors, but such interaction
would be more indirect. Every Mentor at the first level should be allowed
in to the hostel when ‘freshers’ join and, ‘freshers’ and Mentors should be
introduced to each other. The Mentors would help ‘freshers’ in settling
down. This makes sure that ‘freshers’ have some seniors to fall back on
without the fear of ragging and would serve by way of “peer counselling”.
This model has been implemented in some places and has been successful.
The third year Mentors and the faculty in-charge should oversee the
working of the Mentoring Cell and make sure that the Mentors don’t
misuse their powers.

5.20 We also recommend that anonymous random surveys must be conducted
by each institution, across the entire 1st year batch of students (‘freshers’)
every fortnight during the first three months of the academic session in
order to verify and cross-check whether the campus is indeed free of
ragging or not. The institution may design its own methodology of
conducting such a survey. It is extremely important that the institution
does not compromise the anonymity of the whistle blowers.

5.21 The job requirement for the warden calls for a dedicated cadre of trained
and specially qualified professionals. In a situation of shortage of teachers
in higher education, sparing academics for the duties of wardens also
needs to be reviewed. We feel that it is unfair to thrust this specialized
responsibility on teachers and other academics who have to discharge the
functions in addition to the demands of teaching or research. This is not,
however, to suggest that academics can not discharge the obligations of
the warden, indeed a large number of them are already doing it
successfully, but this arrangement is not desirable in all cases. We
recommend that the UGC and other regulatory bodies should lay down the
eligibility of the post of warden reflecting both the command and control
aspects of maintaining discipline, as well as the softer skills of counselling
and communicating with the youth outside of the class-room situations.
The post of warden must carry the necessary incentive to attract the right
type of eligible candidates, and motivate the incumbent.

5.22 We recommend that in the light of the increasing number of private
commercially managed lodges or hostels outside campuses, such hostels
and management must be registered with the local police authorities and
permission to start such hostels or register them must necessarily be
recommended by the Heads of educational institutions. It should be
mandatory for both local police, local administration as well the
institutional authorities to ensure vigil on incidents that may come with in
the definition of ragging. Managements of such private hostels should be
responsible for non-reporting of cases of ragging in such premises. Local
authorities as well as the institutional authorities should be responsible for
action in the event of ragging in such premises, just as they would be for
incidents within campuses. The Committee also recommends that besides
registering private hostels as stated above, the towns or cities where
educational institutions are located should be apportioned as sectors
among faculty members, as is being done by some institutions, so that they
could maintain vigil and report any incidents of ragging outside campuses
and en route while ‘freshers’ commute.

5.23 The Committee respects the autonomy of academic institutions and
believes that to the extent possible incidents of harassment of ‘freshers’ by
seniors should be dealt with under the prevalent ordinances or statutes
and the procedures prescribed thereunder or under the provisions of the
relevant State law. However, where the victim or his/her parent/guardian
is not satisfied with the action taken by the Head of the institution or by
other institutional authorities, or where the Head of the institution is of
the opinion that the incident ought to be so reported, it must be
mandatory for the institution to file a First Information Report with the
local police authorities. Such reports should also be made to the civil
Authorities (such as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Deputy Commissioner or
District Magistrate), the higher Police Authorities (Commissioner or
Superintendent of Police or his Deputies) and also to the media for wider
dissemination. In incidents of extreme sensitivity or grave consequences,
such reports should also be made to the appropriate State Authorities.
Media reports may at times kindle the interest of civil society activists and
Non Government Organizations, whose involvement in tackling incidents
of ragging or the prevention of such incidents must be welcomed and not
looked upon as any hindrance. Universities and State or Central
Governments should also encourage institutional authorities to share
information in respect of ragging, rather than sweeping any incident under
the carpet; we believe that reporting information about incidents of
ragging contributes to the prevention and recurrence of such incidents,
while attempts to cover up only result in more unreported incidents taking
place and matters getting out of control for the authorities. The Committee
expects the sub-divisional, district and divisional or State level authorities
also to share information rather than prevent access to information for the
media and the civil society.

5.24 The Committee recommends that institutions must adhere to complaints
in regard to ragging or any suo motu information in respect thereof, which
its authorities may come across promptly, and all relevant and necessary
action must be attended to with great despatch. The complaints or
information in regard to ragging could be oral or written and even from
third parties and the confidentiality of the source of information must be
protected at all costs. Remedial action must be initiated and completed
with in the week of the incident itself so that complaints do not linger on
and allow either interest in pursuing the matter to vane or enable the
culprits to tamper evidence or influence witnesses.

5.25 The Committee recommends that preventing or acting against ragging
should be the collective responsibility of all levels and sections of
authorities or functionaries with in the institution i.e. administrative head,
teaching faculty and non-teaching employees and not merely that of the
specific body constituted for prevention of ragging. In case of any incident
taking place all the sections must co-ordinate with the sense of moral
propriety and share the responsibility and accountability.

5.26 The burden of proof must, in the opinion of the Committee, lie on the
perpetrator and not on the victim to prove that ragging did not take place.
As mentioned earlier in the previous Chapter, dealing with the
Observations of the Committee, we did not come across any significant
instance of implementing the earlier directions of the Apex Court in regard
to collective punishment in those cases where the perpetrators could not
be identified. Nevertheless, the concept of collective fines or punishment is
a time-tested method of making both active as well as passive participants
or abettors pay for the crime and therefore we recommend that collective
punishment must continue to be in force, with a more effective monitoring
at higher levels.

5.27 Wardens must be accessible at all hours and therefore it is important that
they be available on telephone and other modes of communication -
therefore, we recommend that wardens must be issued mobile phones by
the institutions and the details of their telephone number must be widely
publicised. Similarly, the telephone numbers of the other important
functionaries – Heads of institutions, faculty members, members of the
anti-ragging committees, district and sub-divisional authorities and state
authorities where relevant, should also be widely disseminated for the
needy to get in touch or seek help in emergencies. The Committee
recommends that brochures or booklet/leaflet distributed to each student
at the beginning of each academic session for obtaining undertaking not to
indulge or abet ragging, shall contain the blueprint of prevention and
methods of redress.

5.28 At the level of the District, we recommend a District level Anti-Ragging
Committee, which should consist of the Heads of Higher Education
Institutions as members. It should be headed by the District
Collector/Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate and should also have
the Superintendent of Police/ SSP of the District as member. The
Additional District Magistrate should be a member-secretary of the
Committee, which should also have representation of the local media and
district level Non Government Organizations actively associated in youth
development programmes, as well as representatives of all student
organizations. The District level Committee should hold preparatory
meetings during the summer vacation meetings to take stock of the state of
preparedness of each institution and their compliance with the policies
and directions or guidelines of the appropriate bodies, the
university/State/Central authorities; and the Apex Court’s guidelines in
regard to curbing the menace of ragging. We have already emphasized on
the need for publicity campaigns, summer months may be appropriate to
launch such campaigns. Some of the role expectations from the District
level Committees have already been mentioned in the preceding
paragraphs dealing with activities at the level of Schools as well as higher
education institutions and therefore are not being repeated.

5.29 We have thought through the suggestion that the District level Committee
should function as some sort of an appellate forum to the action taken by
the institution level Anti-Ragging Committee. We feel that this is neither
necessary nor desirable. It is not necessary in the context of the
recommendation that we propose to make in respect of the scheme of
penalty later in this Chapter. It is not desirable from the point of view that
such a mechanism lends an extra-campus dimension to the tackling of
intra-campus disciplinary matters. All matters of discipline within
teaching institutions, in our opinion, must be resolved within the campus
- except those impinging on law and order or breach of peace or public
tranquillity, all of which should be dealt with under the penal laws of the
land; fortifying of which is being suggested by us later on.

5.30 At the level of the University, we recommend that there should be a
Monitoring Cell on Ragging, which should coordinate with the affiliated
colleges and institutions under its domain. The Cell should call for reports
from the Heads of institutions in regard to the activities of the Anti-
Ragging Committees, Anti-Ragging Squads, Mentoring Cells at the level of
the institution, the compliance with instructions on conducting orientation
programmes, counselling sessions, the incidents of ragging, the problems
faced by wardens or other officials. It should also keep itself abreast of the
decisions of the District level Anti-Ragging Committee. This Monitoring
Cell should also review the efforts made by institutions to publicize antiragging
measures, soliciting of undertaking from parents and students
each year to abstain from ragging activities or willingness to be penalized
for violations; and should function as the prime mover for initiating action
on the part of the appropriate authorities of the university for amending
the Statutes or Ordinances or Bye-laws to facilitate the implementation of
anti-ragging measures at the level of the institution.

5.31 At the State level, we recommend that there should be a Monitoring Cell
at the level of the Chancellor of the State Universities, who may also
coordinate with those of the Central Government institutions located in
the State in which the Governor has a defined role under the relevant law.
Governors, in their capacity as Chancellors of State Universities, can
leverage the influence of their office to ensure that the State Government
as well as the university authorities are suitably instructed to be alert in
regard to ragging. The involvement of Governors would also ensure that
the autonomy of institutions of higher learning is not compromised. In
addition, Governors of States are associated with Central Universities in
their role as Chief Rector/Chancellor etc. and can oversee the function of
coordination where required vis a vis the office of the President of India in
his capacity as the Visitor of the Central Universities and also the Central
Government in the Ministry of Human Resource Development. The State
level Monitoring Cell should receive periodically, and at such frequencies
that it may lay down, status reports from the University level Monitoring
Cells and District level Anti-Ragging Committees.

5.32 The Heads of institutions should be required to submit, to the Vice
Chancellor of the University, weekly reports during first three months of
the reopening of the institution and there after reports each month on the
status of compliance with anti-ragging measures. The Vice Chancellor
should submit fortnightly reports of the University level Monitoring Cell to
the State level Cell under the Chancellor. The fortnightly reports as well as
the weekly reports should be compulsorily shared with the media, so that
‘nil’ reports if any are also in the public domain. Wide publicity, including
mandatory hosting of information on the institutional web-site, should be
given to such ‘nil’ reports so that the media acts as a ‘watchdog’ for feed
back and citizens exercise their Right to Information, in case false claims
are made by institutions with a view to protect their “reputation”.

5.33 At the National level, we recommend that the University Grants
Commission should be responsible for coordinating and monitoring the
anti-ragging movement across the country and should constitute a Board
for Coordination consisting of the following : (i) representative of the
AICTE (ii) a representative of the IITs (iii) a representative of the NITs (iv)
a representative of the IIMs (v) a representative of the MCI (vi)
representative of the DCI (vii) a representative of the NCI (viii) a
representative of the ICAR (viii) a representative of the Veterinary Council
and such other representatives as have to do with higher education and are
not represented in the categories mentioned above. The Committee has
already expressed its disappointment that despite the passage of over six
years since the directions of the Apex Court, neither the UGC nor any of
the statutory authorities in the different sectors of higher education have
focussed their attention in dealing with the menace of ragging. The UGC
should constitute an institutional mechanism – such as a Cell within the
Commission to provide secretarial support for collection of information
and monitoring. There should be no delay on this account for any reason,
the Cell should be carved out of its existing secretariat and should
coordinate with the State level and University level Committees for
effective implementation of anti-ragging measures. The UGC and the other
statutory authorities should intervene wherever their existing guidelines
or academic instructions come in the way of implementation of the
recommendations being made in this report. The Commission and the
other funding bodies should also provide adequate funds to universities
and colleges for carrying out the mandate of curbing incidents of ragging.
It should coordinate with the other statutory authorities (AICTE, MCI,
DCI, ICAR, NCTE, NCI etc) so that timely instructions are sent by such
authorities for enabling or mandating institutions to prevent and prohibit
ragging as well as to take action against institutions that tolerate or do not
report incidents of ragging. The UGC and the other funding agencies
should also work out a mechanism of providing grants-in-aid where
institutions successfully prevent occurrence of ragging or where stern
action is taken by institutions against ragging incidents.

5.34 The UGC and the statutory bodies must issue the necessary guidelines or
regulations prescribing the qualifications and eligibility of persons for
holding the post of wardens in hostels. They should work out a suitable
scale of pay for the post of wardens and also assist institutions to create
sufficient number of posts in the cadre of wardens during the XI th Plan
period for which allocations should be provided by the Commission. Just
as the UGC must ensure that every hostel in the academic institutions
must have a professional warden as stated above the AICTE, MCI etc. and
State Governments should be responsible for the appointments of the
respective Cadre of wardens. The necessary facilitating amendments must
be carried out in the statutes of universities and other institutions for the
purpose of creating the new Cadre. The UGC may also consider
encouraging universities to start specialized courses and programmes of
study in Hostel Administration.

5.35 One class of institutions not covered under our recommendations above is
that of the institutions deemed to be universities, which come under the
purview of the UGC and the Central Government. These institutions,
commonly referred to as “deemed universities” consist of constituent units
which impart all types of higher education including professional
education in engineering, medicine etc. Ragging is stated to be as
prevalent in several of them as in other public institutions or universities
established by legislatures of States or by Parliament. Monitoring the
status of anti-ragging measures and prevention of incidents of ragging in
these institutions would logically be the responsibility of the University
Grants Commission’s national level Monitoring Cell. It should be ensured
that the directions in regard to the setting up of Anti-Ragging Committees,
Anti-Ragging Squads, Mentoring Cells recommended by us in respect of
institutions are complied with by the constituent units of deemed
universities as well. The anti-ragging mechanism at the level of such
constituent units of deemed universities must coordinate its activities vis a
vis the district level mechanism recommended by us in earlier paragraphs.
Similarly, each deemed university should constitute the university level
monitoring cell which should coordinate the anti-ragging activities at the
level of the constituent units and should also report to the Monitoring Cell
at the UGC.

5.36 Compliance with anti-ragging measures recommended and required to be
brought in to effect by institutions of higher education, universities as well
as deemed universities, should be adequately recognized by the UGC and
other statutory authorities while earmarking financial assistance to them
as well as while according them academic recognition or while granting
expansion in capacity of seats in various branches of study or while
sanctioning new programmes of study.

5.37 What should be the role of the State Governments and the Central
Government in the efforts to curb the menace of ragging? We recommend
that the responsibility of generating mass awareness and public opinion
against ragging is a function which the appropriate Governments through
the machinery at their disposal and through intelligent use of the media as
well as cooption of civil society activists can accomplish efficiently. We
recommend that there should be media advisory committees at the level of
each State Government and at the national level with the Central
Government which should chalk out campaign strategies and prepare
effective messages for propagation. The Press Information Bureau of the
Central Government should cull out all reported incidents of ragging and
forward the same to the MHRD / UGC for monitoring – the fact that the
Committee had to depend on the assistance provided by Non Government
Organizations for documentation in regard to the reported incidents of
ragging over the years, points to the absence of any centralized mechanism
to monitor such incidents in an authentic manner.

5.38 Non Government initiatives in anti-ragging movement need to be
supported in order to bring about qualitative improvement and efficient
outcomes. The Committee recommends that the Government of India, and
State Governments support such organizations to widen and intensify
their activities. They could be helped to launch awareness programmes
either on their own or in collaboration with the media related efforts of the
Central or State Governments. Such efforts by the civil society may
encourage parents and other well-wishers of ‘freshers’ to exercise various
rights including the Right to Information for ascertaining the real situation
in our campuses.

5.39 Similarly, the Directorates of Information and Public Relations of State
Governments should ensure that there is widest possible publicity to antiragging
measures adopted in each State or what is prescribed under
national guidelines. In States with anti-ragging laws in place, the
responsibility of enforcement also lies squarely with the State
Governments, including the responsibility to make rules under the Act.
There is a larger reason for launching a sustained media campaign to
sensitize the public, with less than 10% of the population in the relevant
age group of 18 years to 23 years enrolled in all sectors of higher
education, due to the low access to higher education, even less in
professional colleges, lower still in hostels, the public at large being too
distanced from the problems that beset higher educational campuses. The
problem of ragging may therefore seem too exclusive to most and too
remote to happen to oneself – precisely why it needs to occupy centre
stage in public debates on higher education.

5.40 Yet another role of the Central Government, through its agency for
censoring and certifying films, would be to ensure that appropriate
directives are in place so that films which have a deep impress on young
minds do not eulogize ragging; we recommend that such directives should
be issued by the Centre Board of Film Certification, similar to the
instructions on alcoholism, smoking or in regard to vulgarity.

5.41 We also recommend that the policy in regard to migration of students
from one university or institution to another whether in the same State or
outside the State needs to be reviewed by the UGC and the appropriate
statutory authorities. While victims of ragging would find it helpful to be
‘evacuated’ from a notorious institution, the misuse of such a facility by
students trying to gain transfer to institutions of their choice, pretending
to be victims of ragging can also not be ruled out. This issue needs to be
approached with circumspection. Also, it is not necessary that the
institution to which a student victim of ragging is migrated would be less
trouble prone than the one being left behind. In any case there has to be a
case to case approach based on the merit of each.

5.42 We recommend that the National Assessment and Accreditation Council
(NAAC) or other accrediting bodies should factor any incident of ragging
while accrediting institutions in different grades. Thus an institution
which has been unable to prevent ragging or where incidents of ragging do
not abate should be given a negative rating appropriately so that its overall
grading is affected.

5.43 The committee recommends that at the national level, the UGC should
fund a toll-free Helpline which could be accessed by students in distress
owing to ragging related incidents. The Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology should facilitate the establishment, infrastructure
and operation of the proposed Helpline. Any distress message should be
simultaneously relayed to the Head of the Institution, warden or officer of
the Hostels, District authorities including the Superintendent of Police,
and should be web-linked so as to be in the public domain simultaneously
for the media and citizens to access it. A genuine message of distress from
the victim of ragging should make it obligatory for the Head of the
institution and civil authorities to initiate action on the lines already
suggested by us.

5.44 Timely communication being the key to attending to distress signals from
victims of ragging, we recommend that access to mobile phones as well
public phones should be unrestricted in hostels and campuses with
reasonable restrictions on the use of mobile phones in class rooms or other
prohibited places in the Campus through the use of technology (using
jammers) rather than banning the use of cell phones by students. If
necessary the UGC or the universities/institutions should issue
appropriate instructions in this regard.

5.45 The Committee recommends that rather than subjecting each incident of
ragging to a different penal treatment under various sections of the Indian
Penal Code, a new section should be added to the IPC, making ragging a
punishable offence on the analogy of section 498A dealing with cruelty
towards women (against dowry related incidents). We have already
explained that ragging is an offence with a multiplicity of ingredients, each
of which constitutes an offence punishable under the existing provisions of
the Indian Penal Code. We further recommend that the Indian Evidence
Act should also be suitably amended on the analogy of section 113A of that
Act, to shift the burden of proof on those accused of ragging.

5.46 We recommend that a comprehensive definition should be included by
way of explanation in the proposed new section on ragging in the IPC, and
all the punishable ingredients namely, abetment to ragging, criminal
conspiracy to rag, unlawful assembly and rioting while ragging, public
nuisance created during ragging, violation of decency and morals through
ragging, injury to body, causing hurt or grievous hurt, wrongful restraint,
wrongful confinement, use of criminal force, assault as well as sexual
offences or even unnatural offences, extortion, criminal trespass, offences
against property, criminal intimidation and attempts to commit any or all
of the above mentioned offences against the victim should be
incorporated thereto, prescribing appropriate punishments in respect of
one or a group of offences.

5.47 The Committee believes that there can not be a half way house in dealing
with the menace of ragging. Mild and soft approach to ragging, even
though required, has clearly not worked so far in curbing the menace. For
example, punishments in the form of cancellation of admission,
suspension from attending the classes, withholding/withdrawing
scholarships, fellowship and other benefits, individual or collective fines,
debarring from appearing in any test/examination and other evaluation
process, withholding results, debarring from representing the institution
in any national and international meet, tournament, youth festival, etc,
suspension/expulsion from the hostel, rustication from the institution for
periods varying from one or more semesters, expulsion from the
institution and consequent debarring from admission to any other
institution – all exist. The existing punishments can not be substitutes for
the penal provisions of law, but only in addition to the punishments that
must be handed out under the Indian Penal Code. We see no reason why
enrolment in an institution or an academic programme should immunize
perpetrators of heinous crimes which otherwise attract the penal
provisions of law if committed by an adult citizen outside the academic
precincts. Our message to the academic community is to ensure good
governance which will respect human dignity by all concerned. It would
indeed be sad if the penal provisions of law were to be used as a matter of
routine to enforce deterrence in campuses.

5.48 Times have changed since the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s caution of treating
those indulging in ragging not as criminals and advising restraint in the
use of the police force. While the intervention and presence of police in
campuses is to be avoided normally, considering the alarming proportions
the severity of ragging has grown to, we recommend that even as every
possible measure to prevent ragging is taken on the lines recommended by
us in the preceding paragraphs of this Chapter and such action is taken at
every level – that of Schools, Institutions, Districts, Universities, States
and finally at the national level – even as every possible strategy should be
adopted to sensitize the public against the evils and ills of ragging through
the use of the media and the civil society at each of the levels described by
us; the time has come to treat every single incident of ragging, however
isolated or “mild” or “positive” it may appear, with the heaviest hand
possible. In support of our argument we could come across no judicial
pronouncement better than the one in the matter of Thiruvananthapuram
Government Engineering College Vs State of Kerala [WP (C) 656 of 1998;
2000 (2) KLT 11] in which Arijit Pasayat, CJ (as his Lordship then was)
writing for a division bench of the High Court of Kerala held;
“..What was intended to be in good faith and provide untainted fun
is now characterized as physical torture with a sadistic tendency
and sexual perversions. There are few reported cases of loss of life
also. One thing is clear that ragging, which was originally thought
of to be a mere joke, has crossed bounds of decency and had
entered the arena of physical and mental torture. It needs to be
dealt with iron hands…”

5.49 We recommend that the punishment to be meted out has to be exemplary
and justifiably harsh to act as a deterrance against recurrence of such
incidents. We therefore recommend that every single incident of ragging,
where the victim or his parent/guardian or the Head of institution is not
satisfied with the institutional arrangement for action a First Information
Report must be filed compulsorily by the institutional authority with the
local police authorities. We believe that the institutional authorities would
become aware of such incidents through one of the many channels already
identified by us – the anti-ragging squads, anti-ragging committees,
mentoring cells, distress calls redirected by the Help Line, by NGOs, by the
media and so on. Any failure or negligence or deliberate delay on the part
of the institutional authority (comprising of the Head of Institution, the
Warden etc.) to file an FIR with the local police, on the dissatisfaction of
the victim with the institutional redress mechanism or suo motu by the
Head of institution, should render the negligence culpable. Needless to
add that every victim or his parent/guardian of ragging can also file an FIR
directly with the police, but failure on the part of the victim to do so should
not justify the delay, or neglect or failure on the part of the institutional
authorities.

5.50 We recommend that the Criminal Procedure Code should be amended to
ensure that cases involving ragging are tried on the fast-track so that there
are no delays in dealing with such matters, keeping in mind the academic
priorities of students who may be required to depose before the courts to
assist the prosecution while the matter is sub judice.
-0-