Students Suicide Becoming More Frequent, Functional Anti-Ragging Helpline Utmost Necessity: Delhi High Court

Observing that students suicide are becoming more frequent, the Delhi High Court has emphasised that a proper, functional and effective Anti-Ragging Helpline is an immediate and utmost necessity.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal said that the process can brook no delay “lest we lose more young lives to this scourge.”

“The Court has already observed that it is deeply concerned with the issue of student suicides which are becoming more frequent, and that urgent steps need to be taken, as also underscored by the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India (supra) and being monitored by the Supreme Court,” the Court said.

“To put in place robust, efficient, and effective processes and programmes to address the issue, at the very least, a proper functional and effective Anti-Ragging Helpline is certainly an immediate and utmost necessity. This can brook no delay lest we lose more young lives to this scourge,” it added.

The Bench was dealing with two petitions filed by Aman Satya Kachroo Trust seeking various reliefs regarding management of the National Ragging Prevention Programme, which was originally run by the Trust since 2012 and was discontinued since April 2022 when the University Grants Commission (UGC) issued a fresh tender awarding a contract to the Centre for Youth Society (C4Y).

In one of the pleas, the Trust sought cancellation of the tender awarded to C4Y for managing and monitoring the Anti-Ragging Programme. Another petition sought a direction on UGC to cancel its notice, advertisement and tender.

In 2009, Prof. Rajendra Kachroo prepared a detailed plan titled “National Ragging Prevention Programme”, aimed at eradicating ragging in higher educational institutions.

It had four key elements- a 24x7 nationwide anti-ragging helpline, a database of student and parent details collected through online affidavits at the time of admission, a database of Anti-Ragging Committees and officials of nearly 50,000 colleges across the country and a compliance and monitoring mechanism through a call centre-based platform.

Same year, the Supreme Court ordered implementation of the plan and mandated that the monitoring function be entrusted to a non-governmental agency. This led to the UGC framing “UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009.”

Believing that his task was complete, the Professor stepped away. Four companies were then engaged for implementing the programme. However, after their failure drew criticism, from 2012 onwards, the Professor was continuously engaged for the task, initially through nomination pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court and thereafter through a competitive selection process in 2013.

In June 2021, a PIL was filed challenging his appointment in which the UGC stated that it would withdraw his nomination and issue a fresh tender. 

In December 2021, UGC issued a fresh tender to manage and monitor the Anti-Ragging Programme which resulted in the award of the contract to C4Y Society. During pendency of the Trust's petitions against the said tender, a fresh tender was issued by UGC in June last year.

It was the Trust's case that the June 2024 tender was substantially an extension of the December 2021 tender, and unless stayed, the challenge in its petition would be rendered infructuous.

Disposing of the petitions, the Bench observed that it did not find it necessary to delve into the larger issues raised by the Trust concerning the efficacy of existing regulations or recommendation for strengthening protections, as the said aspects are already under active consideration before the Supreme Court.

The Court said that such issues require a “robust institutional process” to examine systemic failures in regulatory and administrative mechanisms intended to safeguard student welfare.

It further said that it was not inclined to interfere with the continuing affairs pursuant to the tender in question, more so when the counsel for UGC made a categorical submission that the work order provided to C4Y, under the impugned tender, shall expire on December 31, 2025.

“Without going into the merits of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner/Trust and the respondent no.1/UGC in Court and without entering into the controversy, this Court is not inclined to curtail the ongoing work by respondent no.3/C4Y at the tail end of the contract,” the Court said.

Furthermore, on the issues raised by the Trust regarding the 'ham handed' and 'lackadaisical approach' of UGC and C4Y in conducting a dysfunctional Anti-Ragging Programme, the Court noted that there were increased incidents of students suicide in the past few years and that it was sanguine that the said aspects will be highlighted, underscored and asserted by Prof. Rajendra Kachroo as part of the National Task Force set up by the Supreme Court.

“The Court is also hopeful and optimistic that these aspects, which form part of a larger set of issues and are plaguing the Anti-Ragging Programme, will be considered by the National Task Force. Based on the recommendations of the National Task Force the concerns of the petitioner in relation to the Anti-Ragging Programme which is being conducted by respondent no.1/UGC will also hopefully be addressed and, if necessary, rectified in order to align it with the interest of all the stake holders,” it concluded.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Indira Unninayar with Ms. Apoorv Agarwal, Advocates with Petitioner in person

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha with Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Advocates for UGC; Mr. Yadhnunandan Bansal, Mr. Mr. Abdul Qadir, Advocates for R-3 & R-4

Title: AMAN SATYA KACHROO TRUST v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS and other connected matter

Click here to read order