Introduction:

In the case titled Kerala State Legal Service Authority v. Government of Kerala and Others (WP(C) No. 8600 of 2025), the Kerala High Court has underscored the legislative intent of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998, directing the Working Committee constituted to recommend amendments to ensure that the prohibition on ragging covers incidents occurring both inside and outside the premises of educational institutions. The Special Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice C. Jayachandran observed during proceedings that Section 3 of the Act indicates a clear legislative contemplation to prohibit ragging not just within but also beyond campus boundaries wherever the act of ragging as defined under the statute takes place. This direction emerged from a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA) highlighting the growing menace of ragging in Kerala’s educational institutions, particularly after the tragic incident involving J.S. Sidharthan, a second-year undergraduate student at the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, who was found dead in the men’s hostel washroom at Pookode village, Wayanad. In response, the Court had earlier directed the State to constitute a Multidisciplinary Working Group to fill the legislative and regulatory gaps in the existing Act by proposing amendments and drafting comprehensive Rules to effectively combat ragging across Kerala.

Arguments:

During the recent hearing, the Director General of Prosecution (DG) representing the State submitted that the Working Committee had already submitted two sets of draft proposals and that the Home Department had examined them, but decided to seek comments from stakeholder departments before finalizing the amendments. The DG, however, raised the contention that educational institutions could not be held responsible for ragging incidents occurring outside campus premises, suggesting that in such cases only general penal law could apply.

Judgement:

Opposing this argument, the special bench highlighted the statutory language of Section 3, stating that a plain reading of the provision demonstrates the legislature’s intent to prohibit ragging both “within and outside” the educational institution, provided the act falls under the definition of ragging given in the Act. The bench reminded the Working Committee of its duty to ensure that any recommended amendments or Rules remain faithful to this legislative intent and extend the prohibition effectively beyond campus boundaries where required. The Court further noted that any narrow interpretation excluding off-campus ragging from the institution’s purview would defeat the objective of the Act, which was enacted precisely to eradicate ragging in all its manifestations. Additionally, the bench directed the drafts of the proposed amendments prepared by the Working Committee to be furnished to the Member Secretary of KeLSA and the Secretary of the University Grants Commission (UGC) to solicit their views on the draft provisions. During the hearing, the UGC counsel suggested that the term ‘educational institution’ must be expressly defined in the Act, proposing that it should include administrative offices, academic blocks, and hostels, as ragging often takes place in hostel premises which are part and parcel of student life and directly related to institutions. Supporting this, counsel for KeLSA argued that the statutory definition of ‘educational institutions’ should cover both schools and colleges comprehensively to ensure uniform protection across all levels of education, as ragging is not confined to colleges alone but increasingly being reported from higher secondary schools. The Court observed that clarity in definitions would eliminate any ambiguity about the reach of anti-ragging measures and enable uniform application of prohibitions and penalties envisaged under the Act. The bench recognized the necessity of incorporating such definitions to avoid technical loopholes that may allow perpetrators to escape liability by exploiting jurisdictional or institutional ambiguities. In its concluding directions, the bench called upon the Working Committee to convene its preliminary meeting at the earliest to chart a plan of action and finalize the amendments. The bench also stressed the need for wide stakeholder consultation involving law enforcement, academic institutions, student bodies, and expert agencies to ensure that the revised legislation is robust, practical, and effective in addressing evolving forms of ragging, including cyberbullying, which often occurs outside traditional campus boundaries. The case was adjourned for further consideration next week, with the bench emphasizing the urgency of comprehensive legislative reforms given the disturbing rise in ragging incidents and associated student suicides in Kerala. The Court’s proactive approach, coupled with directions to incorporate expansive definitions and clear prohibitions covering off-campus incidents, signals a significant step towards strengthening Kerala’s legal framework to eradicate ragging comprehensively and protect students’ dignity and safety across the state.