Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Dinesh  Kumar Singh has delivered a judgment directing the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (KVASU) to expeditiously finalize departmental disciplinary proceedings against two officials implicated in the death of a student due to ragging. The Court held that the University's decision to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance was "absolutely incorrect, untenable and against the scheme of the University Act and the Statutes of the University." The Court further declared the reinstatement and transfer of the petitioners as "unjustified, insensitive and against the directions issued by the Chancellor." It directed the University to complete the proceedings within three months in accordance with law. The Court also urged the State to enact a stringent law providing severe punishment for ragging activities in educational institutions.

The tragic incident that triggered judicial intervention involved the death of Sidharthan J S, a second-year BVSc and AH student of the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences under KVASU. On February 18, 2024, he was found hanging in the dormitory bathroom of the Undergraduate Men's Hostel. Following a complaint made to the UGC Anti-ragging helpline, an anti-ragging squad investigated and submitted reports dated March 1, 2024, and March 7, 2024. The reports concluded that the student was subjected to "brutal physical abuse and public trial by a section of students, which amounted to ragging."

Also Read: Restoration Cannot Supersede Public Welfare Where Reversal Imposes Greater Ecological Harm | Supreme Court Quashes High Court Demolition Order | Preserves Recreational Park In Public Interest

The reports found administrative lapses on the part of Dr. M.K. Narayanan, Dean of the College and Warden of the hostel, and Dr. R. Kanthanathan, Assistant Warden. Consequently, the Vice-Chancellor sought explanations from both officials. The communication to Dr. M.K. Narayanan stated multiple failures: including failure to detect the ragging, implement preventive measures, enforce routine patrolling, report the incident promptly to authorities, inform the victim's parents, and maintain mandatory anti-ragging information channels within the hostel premises.

After deeming their explanations unsatisfactory, the University suspended the petitioners on March 5, 2024, under Statute 203(1)(a) and (c). A three-member Inquiry Committee, comprising Prof. (Dr.) C. Latha, Prof. Dr. T.S. Rajeev, and Smt. T.P. Komalavally, was constituted. The Committee's report concluded that both petitioners "had failed to provide a secure and safe campus life for the students." It held Dr. M.K. Narayanan, as the Administrative Head, responsible for managing and controlling the system, and found that Dr. R. Kanthanathan failed to exercise sufficient command and authority over hostel discipline.

The report pointed out that "no inmate of the hostel was willing to reveal the matter or intimate the authorities about the possibility of a mishap or commission of a major crime," indicating a lack of confidence in the hostel administration. Both petitioners were held jointly liable for their failure to discharge duties.

Following this, on March 28, 2024, the Chancellor appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. Hariprasad (former Judge of the High Court of Kerala) under Sections 9(7) and 9(9) of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act 2010 to head a Commission of Inquiry. The terms of reference included inquiring into administrative lapses resulting in the death of the student, the role of university authorities, and recommending preventive measures.

The Commission submitted its report on July 5, 2024. It held the Vice Chancellor responsible, stating, "The VC, who has the ultimate duty to maintain discipline in the campus, cannot shirk his responsibility for the unfortunate incident merely on the ground that nobody promptly informed him about the incident." It further observed that previous incidents of ragging had also gone unpunished.

Regarding the Dean, the report stated that he "failed to discharge his responsibility as Warden" and was "not taking any active interest in the administration of the hostels." The Assistant Warden was also found to have failed in his duties, being "not a regular visitor" to the Men's Hostel.

Based on these findings, an Enquiry Memo dated April 2, 2024, was issued to the petitioners alleging gross dereliction of duties. Their responses were deemed insufficient. In its 86th meeting on August 27, 2024, the Board of Management decided to grant the petitioners a hearing.

However, on September 18, 2024, the Registrar informed the petitioners that the Board of Management had withdrawn its previous decision and would act as per the Chancellor's directions. A communication from the Chancellor dated September 27, 2024, directed the Vice Chancellor not to implement the Board's decision to reinstate and transfer the petitioners until further orders.

Dr. Kanthanathan R sought a writ of prohibition against acting upon the Committee and Commission reports and to quash the August 12, 2024, communication from the Chancellor's Office. It was argued on his behalf that the Chancellor lacked authority under the Act and Statutes to interfere with disciplinary proceedings or suspend the Management Council’s decisions.

Conversely, the Chancellor's counsel argued that the Chancellor's actions were within the powers conferred by Sections 9(7) and 9(9) of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act 2010. The letter dated August 12, 2024, was characterized not as an initiation of disciplinary proceedings but merely as a request for the Board’s opinion.

The Court observed that "the menace of ragging in educational institutions has not stopped despite the Supreme Court issuing a series of directions in this regard." Referring to Vishwa Jagriti Mission v. Central Government, the Court noted that the term ragging encompasses "any disorderly conduct whether by words spoken or written or by an act which has the effect of teasing, treating or handling with rudeness any other student."

The judgment further quoted the Supreme Court’s stance that "ragging cannot be cured merely by making it a cognizable criminal offence" and that such acts "must primarily be dealt with within the institution and by exercise of the disciplinary authority of the teachers."

The Court observed that in University of Kerala v. Council of Principals of Colleges, Kerala, the Supreme Court expressed dismay that "very little was done to prevent the menace of ragging." The resultant R.K. Raghavan Committee stated that "Primary responsibility for curbing ragging rests with the academic institutions themselves" and recommended exemplary punishment.

It noted that the UGC Regulations under Regulation 9.3 mandate that "such authority shall initiate departmental disciplinary action" where there is a lapse attributable to institutional staff in preventing or reporting incidents of ragging.

The Court stated "shock and disbelief" at the "insensitivity of the University in taking effective action against the persons who have been found guilty of dereliction of duty". It elaborated that the Chancellor has "very wide and overarching powers, including the power to direct the authorities to implement the directions" and that "the authorities of the University are duty-bound to comply with those directions."

Regarding the letter dated August 12, 2024, the Court observed that "it does not in any manner restrain the University from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner". It added that "the Board of Management has also wrongly construed" the Vice Chancellor’s communication dated September 24, 2024.

It concluded that the University's decision to suspend proceedings on the basis of Chancellor’s letter was a "ruse to cover up the misdeed, dereliction of duty and inaction of the petitioners."

The Court directed that "the letter dated August 12, 2024, does not in any manner restrain the University from proceeding against the petitioners who have been prima facie found guilty by the Three-member Committee... as well as the Commission of Inquiry."

It held that "the decision of the University to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance... is absolutely incorrect, untenable and against the scheme of the University Act and the Statutes of the University."

The Court stated that "the Board of Management is obliged to implement the directions issued by the Chancellor." It observed that "the University’s decision... to reinstate the petitioners and transfer them... despite them having been found guilty... is unjustified, insensitive and against the directions issued by the Chancellor."

The Court finally ordered that "the University is directed to proceed against the petitioners in departmental proceedings and finalise the same expeditiously in accordance with the law, preferably within three months." The petitioners were directed to fully cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings.

Also Read: "Merely Because the Wife is Earning, She Cannot Be Deprived the Support from Her Husband": Bombay High Court Upholds Maintenance Order Despite Wife's Income

It was further stated that "The University must ensure appropriate action against the erring students who would have been found responsible for the incident in which Sidharthan J S... lost his life in the prime of his youth."

The Court also recommended legislative action, stating "the State, therefore, must frame a stringent law providing severe punishment for ragging activities in educational institutions... The State shall also make sure that the guilty found does not go unpunished."

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of. All Interlocutory Applications as regards interim matters stand closed.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri. Praveen.H., Shri. G. Hariharan, Smt. K.S. Smitha, Shri. Amal Dev D, Smt. Sneha M.S., Shri. Abhijith E.R., Shri. P.C. Sasidharan

For the Respondents: Sr GP Premchan R Nair, Sri. Manu Govind, Shri. S. Prasanth, SC, Chancellor of Universities of Kerala, Smt. Nisha George, Shri. P. Sreekumar (SR.), Sri. George Poonthottam (SR.), Smt. Kavya Varma M.M.

Case Title: Dr. Kanthanathan R v. State of Kerala & Ors. and connected case

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:46803

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 33291 OF 2024, WP(C) NO. 35376 OF 2024

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh