NHRC Chairperson expressed concern over the persistence of ragging in higher educational institutions, despite existing laws and regulations, and called for stronger monitoring mechanisms.

Concerns Highlighted by NHRC

• Persistence of Ragging: Continues despite 2001 SC guidelines, R.K. Raghavan Committee report, and 2009 UGC Regulations.
• Enforcement Gaps: Weak sensitivity, poor victim protection, and ineffective complaint redressal remain major challenges.

Key Recommendations and Measures Proposed by NHRC

• Helpline Visibility: Mandatory display of UGC’s 24×7 anti-ragging helpline on all institutional websites.
• Police Involvement & Representation: Immediate reporting of incidents to police; inclusion of SC/ST/OBC/minority members in anti-ragging committees.
• Monitoring Mechanisms: Regular audits, surprise checks, CCTV surveillance, and campus police visits.
• Mental Health Support: Establish wellness and inclusion centres with trained professionals.
• Reporting & Accountability: Institutions to submit annual anti-ragging reports with evidence; complaints cannot be closed without district administration’s approval.
• Behavioural Change: Use Richard Thaler’s “nudge technique” to shift student mindset and discourage ragging.
• Anonymous Complaints: Encourage confidential reporting; recognise “ragging-free campuses” as best practice.
• Parental Involvement: Inform and involve parents in complaint cases for accountability.
• Institutional Collaboration: Strengthen coordination between NHRC, NALSA, and UGC for awareness and enforcement.

Definition of Ragging: (by the SC, Vishwa Jagriti Mission v. Central Government, 2001)

• Ragging is defined as any act that:
  • Disorderly Conduct: Includes spoken/written words or actions that tease or treat a fresher/junior with rudeness.
  • Causes annoyance, hardship, or psychological harm.
  • Fear Induction: Creates a sense of fear or apprehension in freshers/juniors.
  • Forced Acts: Compels students to do things against their will, leading to shame or embarrassment.
  • Well-being Impact: Negatively affects the physical or mental health of students.
• Cause: To derive sadistic pleasure or assert superiority by seniors over juniors.
• SC Observation: Ragging is a “menace pervading educational institutions” across the country.

Committees and Legal Framework Against Ragging in India

1. Supreme Court Guidelines (2001 – Vishwa Jagriti Mission Case)
   • Institutions must set up proctoral committees to prevent ragging and address complaints internally.
   • If ragging becomes unmanageable or amounts to a cognizable offence, it must be reported to the police.
2. Raghavan Committee Recommendations (2007)
   • Mentoring Cell: Each institution should form a cell where senior students act as mentors for freshers.
   • Awareness Campaigns: Launch national and regional-level advertisements promoting zero tolerance to ragging.
   • Human Rights Education: NCERT and SCERT to include anti-ragging awareness as a compulsory part of curriculum.
   • Legislation: Strong law against ragging with responsibility to prove not-guilty that of perpetrator
3. UGC Guidelines (2009)
   • Adopted under “Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions.”
   • Definition: Lists 9 forms of ragging (teasing, physical/psychological harm, financial extortion, obscene acts, etc.).
   • Institutional Measures: 
     1. Mandatory undertaking from students against ragging.
     2. Institutions to form anti-ragging committees (faculty, wardens, student advisors, senior students).
     3. Joint sensitisation programmes for freshers and seniors during admission.
     4. If found guilty, committee members must file an FIR within 24 hours.
     5. The burden of proof lies on the perpetrator, not the victim.
4. Statutory Provisions on Ragging
   • Tamil Nadu (1997): First state to impose a complete ban on ragging through the Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997.
     1. Defines ragging as disorderly conduct (spoken, written, or physical) that causes teasing, harassment or rude treatment of students.
   • Indian Penal Code (IPC):
     1. Section 339: Defines wrongful restraint — preventing a person from moving in a direction they have a right to proceed. 
     2. Section 340: Defines wrongful confinement — restraining a person within certain limits, preventing free movement.
   • Regulatory Framework: AICTE and the Medical Council of India (MCI) have issued separate anti-ragging regulations under their respective Acts.

Additional Reading: NHRC, Menace of Ragging

DOWNLOAD PDF