How to fight on-campus ragging? Anonymous reporting and effective legal options for students
According to data presented in Parliament, ragging complaints recorded by the University Grants Commission (UGC) dropped from 640 in 2013 to 423 in 2015 but began rising steadily thereafter. While the numbers fell to 219 in 2020 due to pandemic-related remote learning, they surged again post-COVID, reaching 1,094 cases in 2022, highlighting a worrying resurgence of the menace on campuses across India.
However, students are not powerless.
India's comprehensive anti-ragging framework provides robust legal protection and multiple reporting channels to ensure campus safety provided you know your rights and the appropriate steps to take.
Understanding what constitutes ragging
Ragging encompasses any disorderly conduct that humiliates, intimidates, or harms students. According to UGC definitions, this includes:
Verbal abuse and offensive comments
Forced participation in degrading activities
Physical violence or intimidation
Psychological harassment causing shame or fear
Any behavior that creates embarrassment or distress
The law recognises that ragging often masquerades as "familiarisation" or "tradition," but any conduct causing discomfort to junior students qualifies as an offense.
Legal rights for students
India's zero-tolerance policy, established through UGC Regulations 2009 and reinforced by Supreme Court directives, guarantees every student:
The right to a ragging-free educational environment:
No student should endure harassment as part of their college experience.
Confidential complaint mechanisms:
Students can report incidents without fear of identity disclosure or retaliation.
Institutional accountability:
Colleges must maintain Anti-Ragging Committees and take immediate action on complaints.
Direct escalation rights:
Students can bypass institutional channels and report directly to police or courts if colleges fail to respond.
How to report ragging incidents
Students have multiple secure reporting options:
National Anti-Ragging Helpline
:
Phone: 1800-180-5522 (toll-free, available 24/7)
Email: helpline@antiragging.in
Complete anonymity guaranteed
Online Reporting Platforms:
Primary portal: antiragging.in
Campus Authorities:
Contact your institution's Anti-Ragging Committee
Approach Anti-Ragging Squad members
Report to college administration
All complaints receive confidential handling, with victim identities protected throughout the process. Reports are automatically forwarded to Vice-Chancellors, Principals, local police, and relevant regulatory bodies to ensure prompt action.
Consequences for offenders
The legal framework ensures serious repercussions for ragging:
Criminal charges
IPC Section 323: Voluntarily causing hurt
IPC Section 506: Criminal intimidation
Additional charges based on incident severity
Institutional penalties
Immediate suspension or expulsion
Rustication from the institution
Examination and scholarship debarment
Financial penalties up to INR 25,000
Permanent academic record notation
Imprisonment
Severe cases can result in up to two years of imprisonment, creating lasting legal consequences for perpetrators.
Collective responsibility
When individual culprits cannot be identified, entire groups may face penalties, encouraging peer accountability.
Mandatory institutional obligations
Students must stay aware that every institution is bound to fulfill certain requirements to foetser a ragging-free campus. Every higher education institution must:
Establish and maintain Anti-Ragging Committees and Squads
Display helpline numbers prominently across campus facilities
Include anti-ragging policies in official prospectuses and websites
Conduct regular orientation and awareness programs for students
Collect annual anti-ragging affidavits from students and parents
Institutions failing to meet these obligations face regulatory action from the UGC.
Taking action: Step-by-step guide
Consider a first-year student experiencing harassment from seniors. The student can:
Immediate reporting
: Contact the National Anti-Ragging Helpline for emergency support
Campus action
: File a complaint with the college Anti-Ragging Committee
Legal escalation
: If the institution fails to respond, file an FIR with local police
Regulatory involvement
: Escalate through the UGC via national helpline channels
Throughout this process, the student's identity remains protected, and authorities are legally mandated to ensure safety and resolution.
Creating safe campuses
Students must understand that ragging represents criminal behavior, not academic tradition. India's anti-ragging framework provides comprehensive protection through legal safeguards, institutional accountability, and anonymous reporting mechanisms.
Every student deserves a respectful, safe educational environment. By utilising available resources and reporting systems, students can help eliminate ragging from Indian campuses permanently.
Remember: Your safety matters, your voice counts, and help is always available.
Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Divided by parties: When political rivals face trials on same day
Once allies, now rivals — and today, co-accused in courtrooms. In a rare political coincidence, leaders from opposing parties, divided by ideologies and allegiances but united by pending criminal cases, found themselves listed for hearings in three separate trials — all on the same day. In a separate courtroom across town, AAP MLA Daljit Singh Bhola and former MLA Simarjeet Singh Bains, once mentor and protégé in the Lok Insaaf Party (LIP), were also summoned. (iStock) Union minister of state for Railways Ravneet Singh Bittu, former Congress cabinet minister Bharat Bhushan Ashu, Ludhiana district Congress president Sanjay Talwar, and former deputy mayor Sham Sundar Malhotra had a hearing in the court of chief judicial magistrate Pavleen Singh on Wednesday. The case: an agitation held on February 27, 2024, when the group locked the gates of the municipal corporation office near Clock Tower, protesting the Punjab government's alleged failure to implement key welfare schemes. Though Bittu was then a Congress MP, he has since crossed over to the BJP and contested (unsuccessfully) from Ludhiana in the recent Lok Sabha elections. His co-accused remain within the Congress, but internal rifts are evident — notably, Talwar did not campaign for Ashu during the Ludhiana West bypoll. The police filed the charge-sheet in March this year, one year after the protest. In a separate courtroom across town, AAP MLA Daljit Singh Bhola and former MLA Simarjeet Singh Bains, once mentor and protégé in the Lok Insaaf Party (LIP), were also summoned. The duo, now in rival camps, have a hearing in the court of CJM Pavleen Singh for defence evidence in a 2016 case registered under IPC sections related to assault on public servants and disobedience of public orders. Bhola, now an AAP legislator from Ludhiana East, had contested and won in 2022 after severing ties with Bains. Meanwhile, Bains faces another hearing in a third case — lodged during the pandemic under the Disaster Management Act, the Environment Protection Act, and section 505 of the IPC — in the court of Judicial Magistrate Parminder Kaur.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Kiran Kumar gets bail in Vismaya dowry death case
New Delhi/Kochi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday suspended the jail sentence of Kiran Kumar, who was convicted of dowry harassment that led to the suicide of his wife, Vismaya V Nair. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran allowed Kumar's appeal challenging a Kerala high court order that had earlier denied his request to suspend his sentence. The apex court ordered his release on bail, pending the disposal of his appeal before the high court. Vismaya (24), a native of Kaithode near Nilamel in Kollam, was a final-year student of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery. She was found hanging in the bathroom of her husband's house in Sasthamkotta on June 21, 2021 — just over a year after her marriage to Kumar. A day before her death, she had shared WhatsApp messages and photos with relatives, alleging harassment over dowry and displaying visible injuries. Her parents had immediately alleged dowry harassment as the reason for her death. According to her father, Thrivikraman Nair, the family had given 100 sovereigns of gold, more than one acre of land, and a car worth Rs 10 lakh as dowry in 2020. However, Kumar allegedly expressed dissatisfaction with the car and demanded Rs 10 lakh in cash instead. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo by Taboola by Taboola When this demand was not met, Vismaya was allegedly subjected to repeated harassment. In May 2022, the additional district and sessions court in Kollam convicted Kumar under various sections of the IPC, including abetment of suicide and dowry harassment and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. He later challenged both his conviction and sentence in the high court and sought bail, which was denied in Dec 2022. This prompted his appeal to the Supreme Court. Father to approach court: Hours after the Supreme Court's verdict Vismaya's father, expressed disappointment and said he would challenge the Supreme Court's decision. "We will approach the court again to ensure the judges fully understand the actions of the accused that led to her death," he said, but declined to comment further due to the matter being sub judice. In Dec last year, Nair had also contested the parole granted to Kumar, accusing the jail department of violating rules. He alleged that the parole was granted despite a police report opposing it and claimed that vested interests within the jail system influenced the decision.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Phone tapping violates privacy rights, says Madras HC
The Madras high court on Wednesday held that phone tapping, even to detect a crime, amounts to the violation of an individual's fundamental right to privacy, unless it is strictly justified under a procedure established by law. Phone tapping violates privacy rights, says HC The court said that the existing provisions of the Telegraph Act and Telegraph Rules do not permit covert interception of phone calls or messages of an individual merely to detect the commission of a crime. Such surveillance, the court said, is permissible only in cases of public emergency or in the interest of public safety. Justice N Anand Venkatesh, accordingly, quashed an authorisation issued by the Union ministry of home affairs (MHA) in 2011 for tapping the phone of a Chennai resident involved in an alleged case of bribery and for making the results of such interception available to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The judge emphasised that corruption cases must be investigated lawfully, and constitutional protections cannot be bypassed even in serious crimes. Justice Venkatesh said that a citizen's 'right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, as well as part of the broader freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution'. Citing the Supreme Court's judgments in cases such as Gobind vs the State of Madhya Pradesh, PUCL vs Union of India, and the landmark Puttaswamy judgement, the high court emphasised that privacy is an inherent and essential part of personal liberty, though it remains subject to reasonable restrictions under the Constitution. Justice Venkatesh also cited the observations made by former Supreme Court judge justice SK Kaul's concurring remarks in the Puttaswamy judgment and said the same underscored the need to recognize and adapt to evolving constitutional values, 'replacing outdated interpretations with a modern understanding of individual rights'. 'There can be no doubt that telephone tapping would infringe Article 21 unless such infringement has the sanction of a procedure established by law,' the high court said. The court quashed the phone tapping order against the petitioner, P Kishore, after noting that though the MHA had granted such permission saying it was for 'preventing incitement to the commission of an offence', any law enforcement agency was not empowered to 'resort to covert surveillance by tapping the mobile phones to obtain information regarding the commission of an alleged crime'. The MHA, in its affidavit filed before the court, had claimed that it had passed the phone tapping order 'in strict compliance' with section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act and rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules which grant the Centre or state governments the power to intercept or detain messages during a public emergency or in the interest of public safety. Since the petitioner was having a conversation about committing an offence, it was intercepted in the interest of public safety preventing further incitement to the commission of an offence, MHA had said. Justice Venkatesh however, noted that in previous judgments, the Supreme Court clarified that the occurrence of public emergency or the interest of public safety could never be a secretive condition or situation. 'Either of the situations would be apparent to a reasonable person. Covert surveillance of the type conducted in this case definitely cannot fall within the aforesaid two situations contemplated under section 5(2) of the Act,' Justice Venkatesh said. The court noted that in the present case, the order for phone tapping was linked to a CBI investigation based on a first information report (FIR) registered in August 2011, in which Kishore was named as an accused. The FIR alleged that IRS officer Andasu Ravinder, then additional commissioner of Income Tax, had demanded a ₹ 50 lakh bribe from Kishore to help his company evade taxes. The bribe was allegedly routed through Ravinder's friend Uttam Bohra. Acting on this information, CBI intercepted Ravinder and Bohra near Ravinder's residence and recovered a carton containing ₹ 50 lakh. Neither of the two could explain the source of the cash, but Kishore was not present at the scene, and no money was found in his possession. Challenging the surveillance order, Kishore argued that the interception violated his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
