[Tehelka] Toothless verdict

Link to article

The Supreme Court’s new order stops short of endorsing measures that would have a real impact

Shivam Vij
New Delhi

The court is silent on the Raghavan Committee’s recommendation that the onus to prove ragging did not take place should be on the accused The Supreme Court’s interim order on ragging has again put the issue of implementation of anti-ragging measures in a limbo, casting doubts over the potential impact on ragging of the recommendations of what is the second Supreme Court-appointed committee on ragging in seven years.

In 2001, the apex court had acted upon the recommendations of the Unnikrishnan Committee and had recommended that educational institutions that cannot curb ragging may be penalised in terms of funding or affiliation by the affiliating bodies such as the UGC or the aicte. These bodies, however, did not take such measures, not even against at least 15 institutions where students died because of ragging since 2001. Taking note of the deaths, the Supreme Court set up another committee in late 2006 under the chairmanship of former CBI chief RK Raghavan. In view of the inaction of the UGC and the aicte, the Raghavan Committee had submitted 50 recommendations that sought to do away with ambiguities so as to fix clear responsibilities at the school, college, university, affiliating body, district administration, state and central government levels. However, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court’s May 16 order endorses this.

The 2001 order had said that ragging should be dealt with within the institution and the police should be invited into the institution only by the principal. However, the Raghavan Committee noted that principals try to brush complaints of ragging under the carpet. The committee’s recommendation that the institution must file an FIR where the victim or parent is not satisfied, has been endorsed by the court’s new order but it may not have much impact as ragging victims mostly prefer anonymity while complaining. If the head of the institution chooses to ignore an anonymous complaint, there is no way to fix accountability.

Even when FIRs are filed, the committee has observed that there has not been a single conviction in a ragging case. This is primarily because there is often no evidence to prove ragging and eyewitnesses are rarely ready to speak in court. The committee had recommended that the onus of proving that ragging did not take place should be on the accused. The SC order is silent on this, as also on the idea that there be a separate cadre of hostel wardens.

The order assigns to anti-ragging squads within educational institutions the task of ensuring that all ragging-related regulations are implemented, but considering that these squads work within the purview of the head of the institution there is again the issue of external accountability. The order says that the committee “shall continue to monitor the functioning of the anti-ragging committees and the squads to be formed”. Members of the committee are, however, as yet clueless about their role hereafter. The committee had asked that the UGC be told to form a board that would monitor implementation.

The Supreme Court will again take up the case in September and is expected to decide on other recommendations such as the National Assessment and Accreditation Council taking into account the status of ragging while giving educational institutions a rating. Another recommendation of the committee is to begin classes for freshers seven days before that of seniors and the setting up of mentoring cells where seniors would be counsellors to freshers. It also asks for the Indian Penal Code to be amended to include ragging and define it as a criminal offence.

The order endorses the committee’s request for ragging cases to be tried in a fast track court but only as an exhortation, without commenting on the committee’s recommendation that the Criminal Procedure Code be amended to formalise this.

» Writer’s e-mail: shivam@tehelka.com
Jun 09 , 2007