Ragging stems from a desire among some seniors to derive a sadistic pleasure or to assert their power, authority, or superiority over juniors.
Published Mar 24, 2025 | 8:00 AM ⚊ Updated Mar 24, 2025 | 8:00 AM
Ragging not only undermines the dignity of the victims but also disrupts the learning environment, leaving lasting scars on the psyche of those affected.
Synopsis: Recurring incidents of ragging in Kerala calls for stringent provisions that instill fear of consequences. Mere awareness campaigns won’t curb the menace.
The ragging menace has once again reared its ugly head in the hallowed corridors of the state’s higher educational institutions.
Despite state authorities touting stringent anti-ragging measures and proactive awareness campaigns, the ground reality tells a darker story – that there is resurgence of ragging.
Critics contend that the state is woefully under-equipped to combat this menace, relying on the outdated Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998, and the UGC’s 2009 Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging.
With legal experts and educationists demanding urgent, comprehensive reform, the call for an immediate, sweeping legislative overhaul has never been more resonant.
The Supreme Court, through its judgments, has recognised the severe impact of ragging and has taken a firm stance against this menace, underlining its potential to cause irreparable harm and to erode the values of respect and equality in educational institutions.
The apex court defines ragging as any disorderly behavior—whether through spoken or written words, or actions—that teases, ridicules, or treats another student with undue rudeness.
It encompasses rowdy or indiscipline that cause or could potentially cause annoyance, hardship, or psychological harm.
Such acts may instill fear or apprehension among fresher or junior students, or even compel them to engage in tasks they would not ordinarily consider, often leaving them with a sense of shame or embarrassment that can adversely affect their mental and physical well-being.
At its core, ragging stems from a desire among some seniors to derive a sadistic pleasure or to assert their power, authority, or superiority over juniors.
This reprehensible practice not only undermines the dignity of the victims but also disrupts the learning environment, leaving lasting scars on the psyche of those affected.
In the 1990s, a series of incidents spurred Kerala into action against ragging.
The landmark Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Ordinance was promulgated on 23 October 1997, after a series of judicial and tragic events highlighted the issue.
One catalyst was a Kerala High Court judgment on 25 August 1992, in the case of Sajil Venu vs Principal, Sree Narayana College.
Venu, a second-year B.Sc. student, had sought relief from his dismissal after being accused—along with friends—of misbehaving with a fellow student arriving for a university exam.
The court scrutinised the incident under the umbrella of ragging and, noting a pattern of such behavior, urged the government to enact effective disciplinary laws.
The momentum gained further when the gruesome Pon Navarasu murder case shook Tamil Nadu.
On November 6, 1996, Navarasu, the son of the then Vice-Chancellor of the University of Madras, went missing from his hostel room.
Investigations revealed that during a ragging session, senior student John David had assaulted him after refusing to comply with humiliating demands. The assault led to Navarasu’s death, and his body was later dismembered and discarded in multiple locations.
This shocking crime prompted the Tamil Nadu government to swiftly introduce stringent anti-ragging legislation in 1997, setting an example that Kerala soon followed.
Ironically, within days of the ordinance’s promulgation, an alleged ragging-related death was reported at Government Medical College Hospital in Alappuzha.
Twenty-seven years ago, heated debates in the state assembly illuminated a critical flaw in the legal framework addressing ragging in educational institutions.
Today, as the state grapples with the modern intersection of drugs and ragging, historical voices echo.
During discussions on the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Ordinance, 1998, MLA M Murali criticised the light penalties prescribed under the law, on 2 April 1998.
The Act, then under review, mandated a maximum imprisonment of two years and a nominal fine of ₹10,000 for ragging offenses.
Murali argued that such sanctions were grossly inadequate in deterring a menace that had already claimed lives and livelihoods.
He proposed that leaders of ragging should face up to eight years of imprisonment, while heads of institutions, if complicit or negligent, deserve a minimum of five years behind bars.
Murali did not stop there.
He underscored the role of drugs and intoxicants in fueling the ragging culture.
“Students leading ragging are themselves victims of drug abuse,” he declared, urging the implementation of strict bans on the sale, transfer, and storage of intoxicants in and around educational premises.
As contemporary discussions link substance abuse with escalating campus violence, Murali’s 1998 insights offer a prescient critique.
In a decisive move against campus violence, the Kerala High Court criticised the state’s inaction on ragging.
On 5 March, a special bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice C Jayachandran noted that while the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act was passed in 1998, no rules have been framed in the 27 years since its enactment.
They stressed, “If the state is serious about implementing the 1998 Act, mere declarations are not enough,” urging immediate and concrete measures.
The bench’s observation comes amid growing public concern over ragging incidents that continue to disturb the sanctity of academic institutions.
Calling for a comprehensive strategy, the judges recommended the formation of a diverse working group to solicit public suggestions and reexamine whether existing legislation needs to be strengthened.
In a related development at the Assembly on 17 March, Higher Education Minister R Bindu defended the current law’s strict penalties—up to two years’ imprisonment and fine of ₹10,000—while highlighting ongoing awareness programmes, anti-ragging committees, and mandatory affidavits at college admissions to foster a safe campus environment.
However, she stated, “There has been a general demand to revise the Kerala Ragging Prohibition Act, 1998. The issue of revising it, by including more stringent provisions, can be considered.”
Commenting on the present legislation, T Asaf Ali, former Director General of Prosecution – Kerala, said the current anti-ragging law is a paper tiger—weak, outdated, and ineffective.
“If the government is serious about cracking down on ragging, it needs to enforce stricter provisions that instill real fear of consequences. Mere awareness campaigns won’t curb the menace,” he told South First.
“A new, robust legislation is the need of the hour—one that reflects present-day challenges, including rampant drug abuse in colleges and hostels. It must also hold faculty members accountable, right up to the head of the institution, with clear penalties for dereliction of duty.”
At the same time, a faculty member of a government college attributed ragging to a mix of systemic failures and deep-rooted cultural factors, with ineffective enforcement of anti-ragging laws being a major issue.
“Institutions often prioritise reputation over strict action, leading to underreporting and emboldening perpetrators,” the faculty member said.
Cultural normalisation and peer dynamics also play a role.
“For some, ragging remains a ‘rite of passage’—a way for seniors to assert dominance. This mindset lingers despite awareness campaigns,” the member added.
The growing link between substance abuse and ragging incidents is another concern, with drugs and alcohol fueling violent behavior on campuses.
Political patronage further weakens accountability, as perpetrators with student organization ties often escape strict consequences. Cases have shown students reinstated post-suspension due to external influence.
Additionally, exposure to violent media and a perceived decline in empathy among younger generations may be exacerbating the issue.
It is being warned that without decisive action, the cycle of fear, trauma, and impunity will persist, undermining the very foundation of safe and inclusive academic spaces.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
