UGC’s Anti-ragging System Has Utterly Failed: Delhi HC

Syllabus: GS2/Governance

Context

• The Delhi High Court has signalled that it may initiate a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) petition to address the recent surge in ragging incidents and student deaths across higher educational institutions.
  • The development comes after the Supreme Court, this year, expressed concern about the existing UGC regulations.

Supreme Court Observation in 2025

• SC noted that UGC’s anti-ragging regulations remain mostly on paper.
• Institutions only follow formalities — like affidavits and posters — without real action.
• It directed the formation of a National Task Force on student mental health.

Ragging in India

• According to the 2022 National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report:  Students accounted for 7.6% — or 13,044 — of all deaths by suicide in India, surpassing the combined toll among farmers and agricultural labourers. 
• Of the total student deaths, 13.5% were reported in Maharashtra followed by 10.9% in Tamil Nadu, 10.3% in Madhya Pradesh and 8.1% in Uttar Pradesh. 

Government Steps to Curb Ragging

• In a landmark verdict, the Vishwa Jagriti Mission v. Central Government & Others, 2001, the Supreme Court made ragging a punishable offense and mandated strict institutional measures.
• Raghavan Committee in 2007 was constituted by the Supreme Court of India to address the menace of ragging in educational institutions.
  • The committee recommended treating ragging as a punishable criminal offense under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Supreme Court Guidelines: In 2009, the Supreme Court of India ordered the implementation of a ragging prevention program. The program included the following steps:
  • Anti-ragging helpline: A toll-free helpline or call center to be set up.
  • Regulations: Directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to frame regulations to curb ragging in higher education institutions.
  • Anti-ragging committee: Mandated the UGC to constitute an Anti-Ragging Committee and an Anti-Ragging Squad.
• National Ragging Prevention Programme (NRPP), a data-driven mechanism, in 2009 under the UGC supervision.
  • Features: A 24×7 dedicated student helpline, mandatory online affidavits to raise awareness, mechanisms to flag non-compliant institutions, and a non-governmental agency for independent monitoring.
  • It allowed UGC to withdraw funding from non-compliant institutions.
• Role of NGOs: Organizations like Society Against Violence in Education (SAVE) actively track cases and push for legal action against institutions.

Reasons for Persisting Ragging

• Deep-Rooted Cultural Mindset: Ragging is often seen as a “rite of passage” or “initiation ritual” to foster bonding.
  • Many seniors justify ragging because they themselves were ragged.
• Lack of Stringent Implementation: The Supreme Court issued anti-ragging guidelines 15 years ago, but they have largely remained on paper.
  • UGC regulations exist but are poorly implemented.
  • Institutions often downplay or suppress complaints to protect their reputation.
• Lack of Orientation and Awareness: New students often lack knowledge of their rights and redressal mechanisms.
  • Orientation programmes are either ineffective or absent in highlighting anti-ragging policies.
• Unaccountable System: Victims often struggle with an ad hoc, non-transparent process where complaints are not adequately addressed.
• Institutional Inaction: Despite the mandate for Anti-Ragging Squads and surprise inspections, the UGC does not maintain any record of actions taken. 
• Low Compliance: UGC guidelines require students to submit anti-ragging affidavits annually, yet RTI data shows that only 4.49% of students have done so in the past decade.

Way Ahead

• Strict Enforcement of Guidelines: Authorities must ensure full implementation of Supreme Court and UGC regulations, holding institutions accountable for lapses.
• Technology-Based Solutions: Expand CCTV surveillance in campuses to deter ragging incidents.
  • Secure online portals and ID-based dashboards to enable anonymous reporting by victims.
• Legal Clarity: There is need for amendments to laws to ensure strict penalization of offenders, including faculty or management complicit in ignoring complaints.

Source: TH