Kerala High Court
Dr. Kanthanathan R vs State Of Kerala on 25 June, 2025
Author: D. K. Singh
Bench: D. K. Singh
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
1
2025:KER:46803
"C.R."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 33291 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
DR. KANTHANATHAN R
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O RAMANATHAN, C4, STAFF QUARTERS, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL
SCIENCES, POOKODE, WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
BY ADVS.
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
SHRI.G.HARIHARAN
SMT.K.S.SMITHA
SHRI.AMAL DEV D
SMT.SNEHA M.S.
SHRI.ABHIJITH E.R.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, POOKODE, LAKKIDI P.O,
WAYANAD, KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PIN - 673576
3 THE CHANCELLOR
KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695099
4 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
2
2025:KER:46803
KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, POOKODE, LAKKIDI P.O,
WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 673576
5 THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE
,(CONSTITUTED AS PER ORDER NO. KVASU/GA/C3/1214/2024) OF THE GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY, POOKODE, LAKKIDI P.O, WAYANAD, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN, PIN - 673576
6 ADDL.R6. SHEEBA M.R,
AGED 44 YEARS. W/O. JAYAPRAKASH T., RESIDING AT PAVITHRAM, VINOD NAGAR,
KURAKODE, NEDUMANGAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695541
(ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05-06-2025 IN IA 3/24 IN WPC
33291/2024)
BY ADVS. 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.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2025, ALONG WITH
WP(C).35376/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
3
2025:KER:46803
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 35376 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
DR. M.K. NARAYANAN
AGED 57 YEARS
DEAN (UNDER ORDER OF SUSPENSION), COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL
SCIENCES, POOKODE, LAKKIDI P.O., WAYANAD, RESIDING AT STAFF QUARTERS,
UNIVERSITY VETERINARY HOSPITAL, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR, PIN - 673576
BY ADV SHRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE CHANCELLOR
KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, RAJ BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695099
2 THE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY
REGISTRAR, POOKODE, LAKKIDI.P.O. O, WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, POOKODE, LAKKIDI.P.O. O,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
4 THE KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,
POOKODE, LAKKIDI.P.O. O, WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR., PIN - 673576
5 SHEEBA M.R W/O JAYAPRAKASH T., RESIDING AT PAVITHRAM, VINOD NAGAR,
KURAKODE, NEDUMANGAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (ADDL.R5 IS
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05-06-2025 IN IA 1/24 IN WPC 33291/2024 )
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
4
2025:KER:46803
BY ADVS. SR GP PREMCHAN R NAIR
SHRI.S.PRASANTH
SRI.MANU GOVIND
SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.KAVYA VARMA M. M.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2025, ALONG WITH
WP(C).33291/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
5
2025:KER:46803
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024]
“C.R.”
Heard Mr P C Sasidharan and Ms Sneha M S learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr P Sreekumar learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr S Prasanth, learned Standing Counsel for the
Chancellor of Universities; Mr Manu Govind learned Standing Counsel
for Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University; Ms Nisha George
learned Counsel of the 6th respondent and Mr Premchand R Nair learned
Senior Government Pleader.
Facts:
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35376/2024, Dr M.K. Narayanan,
was functioning as Dean of the College of Veterinary and Animal
Sciences of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University
(KVASU). The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33291/2024 is the Assistant
Warden of the Men’s Hostel of KVASU. Being the Dean of the Colleges,
the petitioner, Dr M.K. Narayanan, was the Warden of the said Hostel.
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
6
2025:KER:46803
One student, Sidharthan J S, a second-year BVSc and AH course of the
College, aged around 21 years as on the date of the incident, was found
hanging in the bathroom of the dormitory of the Undergraduate Men’s
Hostel in the College Campus on 18.02.2024.
2.1 The complaint and information received from some students
at the College by the UGC Anti-ragging helpline was transmitted to the
Dean of the college, with a copy to the Vice Chancellor. An anti-ragging
squad of the College investigated the case, and its report confirmed that
Sidharthan J S was subjected to brutal physical abuse and public trial by
a section of students, which amounted to ragging.
3. The report of the anti-ragging squad dated 01.03.2024 and
07.03.2024 confirmed the ragging of the deceased student, holding the
Dean and the Assistant Warden responsible for administrative lapses and
failure in observing the Rules and Regulations prohibiting ragging in
Higher Education Institutions. Accordingly, the Vice-Chancellor called
for an explanation from Dr M.K. Narayanan and Dr R. Kanthanathan, the
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
7
2025:KER:46803
petitioners in these two writ petitions, who were the Dean and the
Assistant Warden, respectively, having immediate responsibility to
ensure the right behaviour and maintain discipline of the hostel
inmates.
4. A three-member Inquiry Committee was constituted by the
Vice Chancellor of the University to inquire into the alleged
administrative lapses on the part of the petitioners leading to the death
of Sidharthan J S on 18.02.2024 at the UG Men’s hostel of the College of
Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Pookode, Wayanad District, Kerala, a
constituent College of the University. The said Inquiry Report is part of
W.P.(C) No.33291/2024 as Ext.P9.
4.1 The notice issued to Dr M.K. Narayanan, Dean, directed him
to furnish an explanation on the following points:
“1. Failure on knowing the reported ragging and the torture of
Sidharthan J.S in Hostel room and Hostel premises.
2. Failure of keeping in place, in Hostel and its premises the needed
precautions, to prevent such an unruly behaviour of some sections of
students.
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
8
2025:KER:46803
3. Failure or routine patrolling and inspection in Hostels by Assistant
Warden and Warden
4. Failure of bringing the incident of death of student Sidharthan J.S to
Police and Higher authorities in time.
5. Failure to report the assaulting of the Sidharthan J.S to the parents or
the University Officials by the Dean or any other College officials.
6. Failure to give a convincing explanation to the parents and Higher
authorities about the situations leading to death of the student
Sidharthan J.S.
7. Failure of reporting by students & teachers about the incident of
ragging through any of the phone numbers displayed in the mandatory
anti-ragging display board that ought to be placed in all the important
locations of college /hostel where the students and teachers used daily.”
4.2 Similarly, an explanation on the following points was called
for from Dr R Kanthanathan vide letter dated 04.03.2024:
“1. Failure in knowing the reported ragging and the torture of Sidharthan
J.S. in Hostel room and Hostel premises.
2. Failure of keeping in place, in Hostel and its premises the needed
precautions, to prevent such an unruly behaviour of some sections of
students.
3. Failure of routine patrolling and inspection in Hostels by Assistant
Warden and Warden.
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
9
2025:KER:46803
4. Failure of bringing the incidence of death of student Sidharthan J.S to
police and higher authorities in time.
5. Failure to report the assaulting of the Sidharthan J.S to the parents or
the University officials by the Dean or any other College officials.”
5. The replies submitted by them were not satisfactory to the
Vice Chancellor. Therefore, orders were issued to place them under
suspension under Statute 203(1)(a) and (c) vide Order dated 05.03.2024,
and an enquiry was ordered.
5.1 The Three-member Inquiry Committee was directed to
submit its report within three months of its constitution. The Three-
member Committee consisted of the following members:
1. Prof. (Dr.) C. Latha, Director (Academics & Research) -Chairperson
2. Prof. Dr. T.S. Rajeev, Director (Entrepreneurship) – Member
3. Smt. T. P. Komalavally (Law Officer, KVASU) – Member
5.2 This Three-member Committee submitted its report, and its
concluding paragraph held that the petitioners herein had failed to
provide a secure and safe campus life for the students. Dr M K
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/202410
2025:KER:46803Narayanan, being the Administrative Head of the Institution, should
have effectively managed and controlled the system and Dr R.
Kanathanathan, being the immediate responsible officer in the hostel,
should have had the command and authority to control the students. 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, which indicated a failure to instill confidence in them. It was
concluded that there were lapses on the part of Dr M.K. Narayanan in
maintaining discipline among students and performing the duties and
responsibilities for observing UGC Anti-ragging Regulations and
Instructions from time to time. Dr M.K. Narayanan did not observe
hostel rules to exercise control over the behaviour of inmate students.
Similarly, there were lapses on the part of Dr R. Kanthanathan in not
exercising the powers of Assistant Warden to prevent the students from
becoming unruly in the hostel. They were also held responsible for the
lack of prior information and knowledge about the commission of a
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
11
2025:KER:46803
major crime like the one which was inquired into, and for not taking
immediate remedial action. They held both petitioners jointly liable for
their failure to perform and discharge duties and responsibilities.
6. The Committee made several recommendations, which are
part of the report and the same are extracted hereunder:
“(1) Accommodation facilities for all the students should be arranged
within the college campus.
(2) The hostel entry timings for all the inmates shall be restricted till
09:30 PM, considering the geographical peculiarities prevalent in
Pookode campus. Special permission can be given to the research
students provided the applications are routed through the proper
channel to the Dean.
(3) Hostel records and registers mandatory to be kept in hostels shall be
maintained.
(4) All the faculty, non-teaching staff, and students shall wear identity
tags within the campus.
(5) CCTV cameras shall be installed in selected common places in the
colleges and hostels.
(6) Security systems should be tightened around the clock
(7) The public, including former students, shall be allowed to enter the
college campus only for genuine reasons.
(8) Advisorship should be strengthened in its true letter and spirit. A
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/202412
2025:KER:46803period shall be dedicated for the advisor-student interaction in the
timetable and reports should be maintained.
(9) There shall be a resident tutor in the hostels.
(10) There shall also be a Matron/Hostel Manager for every hostel.
(11) All teaching faculty shall be given the responsibilities of the Assistant
Warden for a period of one year i.e., the allotment /appointment shall be
on a rotation basis. There shall be supporting staff from non-teaching
staff to assist the Assistant Warden.
(12) The activities of the Parent Teacher Association shall be
strengthened and the involvement of parents in the campus life of
students shall be ensured.
(13) Regular visits and regular meetings shall be conducted by the
Warden and the Assistant Warden and the details of such visits shall be
properly recorded and well maintained.
(14) Complaint boxes should be installed at colleges and hostels.
(15) Students shall be apprised of the provisions for redressal of
grievances
(16) Counselling to the students should be ensured on a timely basis.
(17) Relevant Government Orders/circulars shall be strictly complied
with while granting permission to students’ union/university union
activities within the campus. The involvement of faculty in each
student’s union activities should be ensured.
(18) UGC anti-ragging regulations and instructions issued from time to
time by the University/ Higher Education Council of the Government of
Kerala shall scrupulously be followed at the college and University
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/202413
2025:KER:46803campus.”
7. The Chancellor, vide notification dated 28.03.2024, after
taking cognizance of the death of Sidharthan J S, a second-year student
of BVSc and AH, perusing the report submitted by the Vice-Chancellor
and the Registrar of Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University,
which prima facie showed serious administrative lapses on the part of the
University authorities/officers in taking timely action in the matter,
deemed it necessary to have an Inquiry conducted into the
administrative lapses, failure of authorities/officers to prevent ragging
and other criminal activities in the University campus. Accordingly, in
exercise of the powers vested under Section 9(7) and Section 9(9) of the
Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act 2010, the
Chancellor appointed Hon’ble Mr Justice A Hariprasad (former Judge of
the High Court of Kerala) as the Commission of Inquiry to conduct an
inquiry into the lapses and omissions concerning the administration of
the campus and hostel, into the omissions or refusal on the part of the
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
14
2025:KER:46803
authorities/officers of the University in performing their duties in terms
of the Act, Statutes, Regulations and Anti-ragging Regulations issued by
the UGC.
7.1 The terms of reference of the Commission are extracted
hereunder:
“i. The Commission shall inquire into the lapses in the administration
which resulted in the tragic death of Sidharthan J.S., BVSc. student of the
College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (CVAS), Pookode, Wayanad,
under the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University.
ii. The Commission shall inquire into the alleged lapses on the part of
Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University co authorities/Officers
including that of the then Vice Chancellor and the Dean to contain D the
unsavory incidents of ragging and violence in the campus leading to the
unfortunate incident and shall fix the responsibility on the officers or
authorities of the University for omissions, lapses, if any which led to the
tragic incident.
iii. The Commission shall inquire into the lapses in the administration on
the part of University authorities/officers /officials in taking actions
prior to and post commission of the offence.
iv. The Commission shall suggest preventive measures to avert similar
incidents in future.”
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
15
2025:KER:46803
8. The Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Chancellor held
the Vice-Chancellor responsible, besides the two petitioners. The
conclusion of the Commission of Enquiry Report dated 05.07.2024
[Ext.P14] in W.P.(C) No.33291/2024 read as under:
“1. 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. As the Administrative Head of the University, he should have
ensured that all the important matters happening in the University and
CVAS, Pookode and other colleges are brought to his knowledge by the
responsible Officers subordinate to him. Supervisory powers conferred
on VC is not merely to act only when informed. It includes a duty to see
that the Officers under his control reported serious matters promptly.
2. Two incidents of ragging prior to Sidharthan’s death were also during
the stint of the VC. They went unnoticed and unpunished by the
authorities, despite some teachers in the college had known about the
incidents. It indicates the lack of trust and co-ordination between the VC,
Dean and the Teachers. Pertinent aspect is that CVAS Pookode is situated
in the University Campus itself, unlike other colleges affiliated to the
University. So, VC could have collected Information regarding any
untoward incident, had he been vigilant and proactive.
3. In so far as the functioning of the Dean is concerned, it has to be
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/202416
2025:KER:46803observed that he failed to discharge his responsibility as Warden.
Materials available on record clearly show that he was not taking any
active interest in the administration of the hostels and he was completely
relying on the wisdom of the Assistant Wardens.
4. Statements given by some of the witnesses that Warden seldom go to
the Men’s Hostel cannot be brushed aside. Defacing the walls of the hostel
by writing obscenity and political slogans GH show the lack of concern
on the part of the Warden to enforce discipline.
5. After the incident of Sidharthan’s hanging, the Warden, who came to
the hostel, did not act prudently, which invited severe criticism from the
family members of the deceased and others. Dean (Warden), being a
Surgeon, should have seen that the boy died by the time he reached the
hostel because extremities of the body had turned bluish, the body was
frigid and there was no pulse. These facts were noticed by the students
before Warden’s arrival. He should have waited for the law enforcing
agency to act so that much of the criticisms could have been avoided.
6. Records show that after the incident Dean used to send reports
regularly to VC. There is no material on record to show that VC and Dean
used to interact frequently on important administrative matters relating
to hostels prior to the incident. In this regard, it is important to COURT
note that the Assistant Warden had pointed out deficiencies like absence
of CCTV in the hostel, need for posting Security Guards etc. There is no
material on record to show that the VC, Registrar and Dean had taken
any steps to supply the amenities which could have helped better
surveillance on the students.
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
17
2025:KER:46803
7. The Assistant Warden also failed in his duties to enforce discipline in
the Men’s Hostel. It has come out in evidence that he was not a regular
visitor to the hostel. To some extent, the senior students were ruling the
roost. He never cared to visit the rooms to find out the unruly behavior
of the students inside the hostel.
8. Although Assistant Warden’s endeavors to secure presence of Security
Guards, CCTV Camera and Resident Tutor did not yield any result, he
cannot extricate himself from the responsibilities which he could have
discharged personally, had he been vigilant. It has come out in evidence
that attack on Sidharthan during the night between 16-17 February, 2024
was communicated to him by students, but he did not take any steps to
inquire into the incident or take Sidharthan to a hospital.
9. Functioning of the Teachers as Student Advisors is far from
satisfactory. Even though they are bound to deal with the academic and
personal matters of a certain number of students, most of them could not
win the confidence of the students. That is evident from the fact no
student approached them for redressal of grievance, even in a case of
physical assault.
10. If the allegation, raised by some academic faculty members that the
authorities at the helm of affairs of the University administration are not
interested in staying in the Head Quarters at Pookode and they prefer to
further their interest at Mannuthy and they spend more time at
Mannuthy, is true, could be a reason for lack of efficiency in the
management and could lead to a kind of anarchy. That fact needs to be
ascertained and remedial measures, if any, to be taken.”
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
18
2025:KER:46803
8.1 The report is scathing about the conduct of the Vice-
Chancellor. The report states that two incidents of ragging before
Sidharthan’s death also took place during the stint of the Vice-
Chancellor. These two incidents went unnoticed and unpunished by the
authorities, despite some teachers in the college being aware of the
incidents, which reveals a lack of trust and coordination between the
Vice-Chancellor, Dean, and the Teachers.
8.2 In respect of the Warden and Assistant Warden, the
Commission noticed that the Dean failed to discharge his responsibilities
as Warden. He was not taking any active interest in the administration
of hostels, and he was completely relying on the wisdom of the Assistant
Wardens. In respect of the Assistant Warden, it was observed that he
also failed in his duties to enforce discipline in the Men’s hostel. He was
not a regular visitor to the hostel. The senior students were ruling the
roost, and he never cared to visit the rooms to find out the unruly
behaviour of the students inside the hostel.
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
19
2025:KER:46803
9. The Commission also suggested the following preventive
measures to avert similar incidents in future in paragraph 92:
“1. The Vice Chancellor shall discharge his functions as provided under
Section 13 of the University Act, 2010 and also under Section 10 of the
First Statute 2014. The expression “general supervision and control over
the affairs of the University” occurring in Section 3 of the First Statute
shall be read in conjunction with the VC’s duty to maintain discipline
among the students, teaching staff and other employees of the
University. It becomes the obligation/duty of the VC to take measures to
get to know of the major issues in the University and Colleges and to deal
with the situations, in order to prevent any untoward incident.
2. Registrar of the University is the Officer empowered to administer the
University office subject to the general direction and control of the VC.
He has the authority to sanction expenditure on matters connected with
the University and the institutions thereunder. He shall judiciously apply
his discretion to prioritize matters relating to administration of the
University and institutions. If timely action was taken at his level,
complaint that there was infrastructural deficiencies like not providing
CCTV in hostels and other places, absence of security guards, not filling
up the post of Resident Tutor etc. could have been averted. Inadequate
allotment of funds shall not be a reason for not setting up essential
measures for maintaining discipline.
3. Dean, who is the Warden by the Rule prescriptions, shall exercise his
right as such independently without leaving all the matters completely
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/202420
2025:KER:46803to the Assistant Wardens. It is true that Warden is not expected to involve
in day to day activities. But then, Warden must be aware of the activities
of the inmates in the hostels and behavior of the students in the campus
as the Head of the Institution.
4. Power of delegation of duties conferred on VC and Dean cannot be
taken as a right to abdicate their statutory responsibility to maintain
discipline in the institutions.
5. Assistant Warden, who is the ultimate authority to administer the daily
affairs of the hostels, should conduct periodical inspections in the hostel
rooms, kitchen, mess hall etc. and take measures to remove any
difficulty, if found and also to maintain discipline, if any unwelcome
things are noticed. Although the Assistant Warden is assisted by a Hostel
Committee comprising of students, he cannot completely rely on then in
the matter of maintaining discipline in the hostel.
6. The following facilities should be provided in the campus and hostels
as a measure to enforce discipline
(a) CCTV Cameras shall be installed at proper places in the hostels
and campus for surveillance of the movement of students,
(b) Definite timings for all the hostel inmates should be fixed for
leaving and entering the hostel. Going by the decision in Fiona
Joseph (supra) access to the hostels could be regulated at 9.30 p.m.
as the latest time for entering the hostel. In case of any emergency
or other sufficient reasons, a late comer shall get the permission
from the Assistant Warden/Warden for entry. Similarly, if an inmate
wants to go out after 9.30 p.m. he/she should, on showing sufficient
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/202421
2025:KER:46803reason, take permission from the Assistant Warden/Warden.
(c) Sufficient lighting should be provided in the surroundings of the
college, hostels, auditoriums etc.
(d) Security Guards should be provided to each hostel run by CVAS,
Pookode.
(e) Hostels should be gated communities guarded by security
personnel employed by CVAS.
(f) Registers pertaining to the hostel shall be maintained properly
periodically inspected.
(g) All students and teaching faculty should be provided with
distinct identity tags and wearing the same in the campus must be
made mandatory.
(h) Resident Tutor shall be appointed in each hostel as part of
supervising the activities of the inmates.
(i) There shall also be a Matron/Hostel Manager for all the hostels.
7. Although the rights of the students, individually or collectively, to
demand for proper amenities/infrastructure for a congenial atmosphere
to study, should be respected, any kind of political activity in the college
should be strictly prohibited in view of the binding pronouncements by
the High Court of Kerala.
8. The functions of Anti-Ragging Squad and Anti-Ragging Committee
must be strengthened and the responsible authorities should discharge
their functions without waiting for an unfortunate incident to happen.
9. Student Advisors should perform their duties in letter and spirit
properly so that there is no complaint from the part of any parent about
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/202422
2025:KER:46803the lack of communication.
10. Anti-Ragging awareness programmes must be conducted in an
effective manner and as provided by the UGC Regulations. Clear signal
should be given to all students that the institution has a zero tolerance
policy to ragging of any kind.
11. Functioning of the Director of Students Welfare must be made
effective in the matter of implementation of all Government/UGC/Court
orders in respect of anti-ragging measures in the campuses.
12. The complaint that the Hostels functioning in the University campus
were not intended at the time of construction to cater the needs of the
present strength and it was intended only for a lesser number of students
should be addressed properly and remedial measures should be taken.
13. Provisions in the Hostel Rules should be implemented strictly.
14. PTA meetings shall be conducted regularly and the parents should be
taken into confidence, and they must be kept promptly informed about
the conduct of their wards.
15. The issue raised by some members of the teaching faculty that Senior
Officers of the University (referred to in Section 11 of the University Act,
2010) prefer to stay away from the University Head Quarters at Pookode
and to work from Mannuthy Campus, if found true, should be
discouraged. The obvious reason is that such a conduct not only reduces
the significance of the Head Quarters, but also affects the quality of
administration and maintenance of discipline.”
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
23
2025:KER:46803
10. The petitioners were issued notice dated 04.03.2024 asking for
their explanation for not taking disciplinary actions against them for the
following failures:
“8. Failure in knowing the reported ragging and the torture of
Sidharthan.J.S in Hostel room and Hostel premises.
9. Failure of keeping in place, in Hostel and its premises the needed
precautions, to prevent such an unruly behavior of some sections of
students.
10. Failure of routine patrolling and inspection in Hostels by Assistant
Warden and Warden.
11. Failure of bringing the incidence of death of student Sidharthan.J.S to
police and Higher authorities in time.
12. Failure to report the assaulting of the Sidharthan.J.S to the parents or
to the University Officials by the Dean or any other College officials.
13. Failure to give a convincing explanation to the parents and Higher
authorities about the situations leading to death of the student
Sidharthan.J.S
14. Failure of reporting by students & teachers about the incident of
ragging through any of the phone numbers displayed in the mandatory
antiragging display board that ought to be placed in all the important
locations of college /hostel where the students and teacher used daily.
Reply to this may be given before 4.30 pm today evening.”
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
24
2025:KER:46803
10.1 The petitioners submitted their reply to the show cause
notice. Vide Order dated 05.03.2024, passed by the Vice Chancellor, the
petitioners were placed under suspension.
11. Enquiry Memo dated 02.04.2024 was issued to the petitioners
alleging gross violation of hostel rules by the inmate students and
dereliction of duties by the petitioners as Warden and Assistant Warden
to exercise powers conferred under the hostel rules of the University.
11.1 The explanations offered by the petitioners were not found
sufficient. It was alleged that the indifferent, negligent and callous
attitude of the petitioners was responsible for the unfortunate incident.
The petitioners were given fifteen days to file their reply to the Enquiry
Memo. The petitioners submitted their reply. A Three-member Enquiry
Committee was constituted to enquire into the administrative lapses on
the part of the petitioners leading to the death of Sidharthan J S on
18.02.2024 at the UG Men’s hostel in the College campus.
12. After the Three-member enquiry, an Order was passed by the
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
25
2025:KER:46803
University on 27.08.2024, the Board of Management in its 86th meeting
resolved to afford a hearing to the petitioners with respect to their
written reply filed in defence against the proposed disciplinary action.
The petitioners were directed to appear for an inquiry before the Vice
Chancellor and the Faculty Dean. The Vice Chancellor was the
Disciplinary Authority, and the Faculty Dean was the Presenting Officer.
13. Dr Kanthanathan R, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33291/2024,
has prayed for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from
using or taking action upon Ext.P14, the report submitted by the
Commission of Inquiry. It has also been prayed that the respondent
authorities should be restrained from proceeding with or taking any
further action against the petitioners based on Ext.P9, Three-member
Inquiry Report.
13.1 A further prayer has been made to quash the communication
dated 12.08.2024 [Ext.P15] from the Office of His Excellency the
Governor/Chancellor for taking necessary action in the matter as per
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
26
2025:KER:46803
the provisions under Section 9(7)(iii) of the Kerala Veterinary and
Animal Sciences University Act 2010 and communicate the opinion of
the Management Council/Board of Management within a time frame of
45 days.
14. Strangely enough, the Registrar of the University issued a
letter dated 18.09.2024 to the petitioners stating that a Commission of
Inquiry was constituted by His Excellency the Governor. The Hon’ble
Chancellor of the University had already initiated the process by
communicating the opinion of the Management Council/Board of
Management in the Inquiry Report under Section 9(7)(iii) of the Kerala
Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act 2010. In Chapter VII, the
Disciplinary Procedure of KVASU First Statutes, Sections 212 to 214
provide the powers of Higher Authorities. The Board of Management
considered the matter in its Special Meeting held on 12.09.2024, and it
decided to withdraw its decision taken in the matter and to proceed
further as per the directions of the Chancellor. It was also said that the
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
27
2025:KER:46803
Vice Chancellor had issued directions to place the whole matter before
the Management Council in its meeting scheduled on 24.09.2024 for
consideration, and final orders should be issued subject to the decision
in this regard. The said communication has been placed on record as
Ext.P16 in W.P.(C) No.33291/2024.
15. The Office of His Excellency, Governor/Chancellor sent a
communication dated 27.09.2024 to the Vice Chancellor, directing him
to furnish a self-contained and specific updated report on the decision
of the Management Council of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal
Sciences University in its Special Meeting dated 24.09.2024. They were
also directed not to implement the decision dated 24.09.2024 of the
Management Council in respect of the reinstatement and transfer of the
petitioners and to keep it in abeyance until further orders. The Vice
Chancellor was directed to furnish the report at the earliest.
Submissions:
16. Mr P C Sasidharan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Dr
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
28
2025:KER:46803
M.K. Narayanan, has submitted that Kerala Veterinary and Animal
Sciences University Act 2010 and the Statute do not authorise the
Chancellor to take a decision in respect of the disciplinary proceedings
of the petitioners. The Chancellor is only a Statutory functionary under
the University Act and Statute. The Chancellor can issue directions of a
limited nature, which is evident from Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. The
Chancellor has no power to direct to keep the decision of the
Management Council in abeyance or suspend the same.
17. Mr P Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr S
Prasanth, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Chancellor,
submitted that the Chancellor of the University in exercise of the powers
conferred on him under Section 9(7) and Section 9(9) of the Kerala
Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act 2010 constituted an
inquiry into the incident by a retired Judge of the High Court and on
receipt of the enquiry report, the Chancellor sought opinion of the
Management Council on the report as contemplated under Section
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
29
2025:KER:46803
9(7)(iii) of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act
2010. The said letter dated 12.08.2024 has nothing to do with the
disciplinary action initiated against the petitioners. The letter dated
12.08.2024 only demanded the opinion of the Management Council on
the Inquiry Report so that the Chancellor can act further under the
provisions of Section 9(7)(iii) of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal
Sciences University Act 2010.
17.1 The Office of the Chancellor also proceeded further under
Section 9(9) of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act
2010. The then Vice Chancellor had been provided with an opportunity
to place his case in person pursuant to the Inquiry Report. The action
desired vide letter dated 12.08.2024 had nothing to do with the
disciplinary proceedings initiated and pending against the petitioners.
The Statute of the University, Sections 212 to 214 of the First Statute,
provide for the powers to be exercised by the higher authorities. The
letter dated 12.08.2024 did not invoke any of the powers mentioned in
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
30
2025:KER:46803
Statutes, Sections 212 to 214, but had only demanded the opinion of the
Vice Chancellor on the Inquiry Report furnished to the Chancellor.
17.2 It is therefore submitted that dropping the inquiry and
revoking the suspension of the petitioners merely on the ground that
the Chancellor has demanded the opinion of the Management
Council/Board of Management is wholly unwarranted and based on the
misreading of the communication 12.08.2024 and misconstruing the
provisions of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act
2010 and the Statutes.
18. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties and perused the records.
Vishwa Jagriti Mission v. Central Government1
19. The menace of ragging in educational institutions has not
stopped despite the Supreme Court issuing a series of directions in this
regard in Vishwa Jagriti Mission v. Central Government. The Supreme
1
2001 (6) SCC 577
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
31
2025:KER:46803
Court in the aforesaid judgment defined ‘Ragging’ as ‘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, indulging in
rowdy or indisciplined activities which causes or is likely to cause annoyance,
hardship or psychological harm or to raise fear or apprehension thereof in a
fresher or a junior student or asking the students to do any act or perform
something which such student will not do in the ordinary course and which has
the effect of causing or generating a sense of shame or embarrassment so as to
adversely affect the physique or psyche or a fresher or a junior student.’
19.1 The Supreme Court, in the judgment, issued the following
guidelines:
“This Court views with concern the increase in the number of incidents
of ragging in educational institutions. Some of the reported incidents
have crossed the limits of decency, morality and humanity. Some of the
States have acted by enacting legislation and making ragging as defined
therein a cognizable and punishable offence. However, we feel ragging
cannot be cured merely by making it a cognizable criminal offence.
Moreover, we feel that the acts of indiscipline and misbehaviour on the
part of the students must primarily be dealt with within the institution
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/202432
2025:KER:46803and by exercise of the disciplinary authority of the teachers over the
students and of the management of the institutions over the teachers and
students. Students ought not ordinarily be subjected to police action
unless it be unavoidable. The students going to educational institutions
for learning should not remain under constant fear of being dealt with
by police and sent to jail and face the courts. The faith in the teachers for
the purpose of maintaining discipline should be restored and the
responsibility fixed by emphasising the same.”
19.2 The Supreme Court was of the view that Ragging can be
stopped by creating awareness amongst the students, teachers and
parents that ragging is a reprehensible act. A number of guidelines were
issued by the Supreme Court in this judgment, directing the University
Grants Commission to bring the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court
to the notice of all educational institutions. Publicity must also be given
by issuing press notes in the public interest by the UGC and the Central
Government.
University of Kerala (3) v. Council of Principals of Colleges, Kerala2
2
(2009) 16 SCC 441
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
33
2025:KER:46803
20. The Supreme Court noticed with dismay that,
notwithstanding the concern shown by the Supreme Court in Vishwa
Jagriti Mission (supra), very little was done to prevent the menace of
ragging in educational institutions. Therefore, a Committee headed by
Mr R.K. Raghavan, Ex-Director, CBI was constituted immediately to make
recommendations as to how the provisions already enacted in several
States and Statutes to be framed to prevent the menace and effectively
eliminate the menace. The Committee had three other members: (i) the
Director, IIT, Kanpur, (ii) the Principal of Dr Maulana Azad Medical
College, New Delhi and (iii) the Principal, Ramjas College, New Delhi. And
the Committee was directed to nominate two suitable persons from
Bombay and Chennai to be part of the Committee.
University of Kerala v. Council of Principals of Colleges, Kerala3
21. An elaborate report was submitted by the said Committee,
headed by Mr R.K. Raghavan. The Committee stated the factors required
3
(2009) 16 SCC 712
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
34
2025:KER:46803
to focus on tackling the problem of ragging, which have been taken note
of in the Order dated 16.05.2007. Paragraph 2 of the said Order reads as
follows:
“2. According to the Committee, the following factors need to be focused
on to tackle the problem:
(a) Primary responsibility for curbing ragging rests with the academic
institutions themselves.
(b) Ragging adversely impacts the standards of higher education.
(c) Incentives should be available to institutions for curbing the menace and
there should be disincentives for failure to do so.
(d) Enrolment in academic pursuits or a campus life should not immunise
any adult citizen from penal provisions of the laws of the land.
(e) Ragging needs to be perceived as failure to inculcate human values from
the schooling stage.
(f) Behavioural patterns among students, particularly potential “raggers”,
need to be identified.
(g) Measures against ragging must deter its recurrence.
(h) Concerted action is required at the level of the school, higher educational
institution, district administration, university, State and Central
Governments to make any curb effective.
(i) Media and the civil society should be involved in this exercise.”
21.1 The Committee also made several recommendations. Some of the
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
35
2025:KER:46803
important recommendations directed to be implemented by the
educational institutions were stated by the Supreme Court in paragraphs
3 to 6 of the aforesaid order, which reads as follows:
“3. The Committee has made several recommendations. For the present,
we feel that the following recommendations should be implemented
without any further lapse of time:
(1) The punishment to be meted out has to be exemplary and
justifiably harsh to act as a deterrent against recurrence of such
incidents.
(2) Every single incident of ragging where the victim or his parent/
guardian or the Head of institution is not satisfied with the
institutional arrangement for action, a first information report must
be filed without exception by the institutional authorities with the
local police authorities. Any failure on the part of the institutional
authority or negligence or deliberate delay in lodging the FIR with
the local police shall be construed to be an act of culpable negligence
on the part of the institutional authority. If any victim of ragging or
his parent/guardian intends to file an FIR directly with the police,
that will not absolve the institutional authority from the
requirement of filing the FIR.
(3) Courts should make an effort to ensure that cases involving
ragging are taken up on a priority basis to send the correct message
that ragging is not only to be discouraged but also to be dealt with
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/202436
2025:KER:46803sternness.
In addition, we direct that the possibility of introducing in the
educational curriculum a subject relating to ragging shall be explored by
the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and
the respective State Council of Educational Research and Training
(SCERT). This aspect can be included in the teaching of the subject
“Human Rights”. In the prospectus to be issued for admission by
educational institutions, it shall be clearly stipulated that in case the
applicant for admission is found to have indulged in ragging in the past
or if it is noticed later that he has indulged in ragging, admission may be
refused or he shall be expelled from the educational institution.
4. The Central Government and the State Governments shall launch a
programme giving wide publicity to the menace of ragging and the
consequences which follow in case any student is detected to have been
involved in ragging.
5. It shall be the collective responsibility of the authorities and
functionaries of the institution concerned and their role shall also be
open to scrutiny for the purpose of finding out whether they have taken
effective steps for preventing ragging and in case of their failure, action
can be taken; for example, denial of any grant-in-aid or assistance from
the State Governments.
6. Anti-ragging committees and squads shall be forthwith formed by the
institutions and it shall be the job of the committee or the squad, as the
case may be, to see that the Committee’s recommendations, more
particularly those noted above, are observed without exception and if it
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
37
2025:KER:46803
is noticed that there is any deviation, the same shall be forthwith brought
to the notice of this Court. The Committee constituted pursuant to the
order of this Court shall continue to monitor the functioning of the anti-
ragging committees and the squads to be formed. They shall also monitor
the implementation of the recommendations to which reference has
been made above. Post these matters in September 2007 for further
directions on the recommendations received from the Committee.”
University of Kerala v. Council of Principals of Colleges in Kerala4
22. The Supreme Court again gave directions to the Committee to
submit further reports, and the Committee submitted the second and
third reports. The Supreme Court held that ragging, in essence, is an
abuse of human rights. Ragging often involves violence. The students
are subjected to physical torture or psychologically terrorised. All
human beings have the right to live a life of dignity, but when it is
intentionally or recklessly damaged or departed then it is a violation of
the human rights of the students.
22.1 Paragraphs 11 to 19 of the judgment have defined and
4
(2009) 15 SCC 301
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
38
2025:KER:46803
described ragging as follows:
“11. Ragging in essence is a human rights’ abuse. Ragging can be in
various forms. It can be physical abuse or mental harassment. In present
times shocking incidents of ragging have come to the notice. Sometimes
violence is used. The student is physically tortured or psychologically
terrorized. All human being should be free to claim, as a matter of right
in the society in which they live, for life of dignity but when it is
intentionally or recklessly damaged or departed then the person’s
human right is abused; in that sense ragging is the best example of
human rights’ abuse.
12. Everyman’s Encyclopaedia (1938 Edition, Vol. II) and Random House
Dictionary of the English Language (1967 Edition) have references about
ragging. The synonyms of ragging as racking, ducking, teasing, etc. are
mentioned in detail in these reference books. In England
the credit/discredit goes to Duke of Exeter to introduce the practice of
ragging. Racking was another form of ragging in which a special
instrument called ‘rack’ was used to torture the victim. Gradually it
mixed up with the term of ragging. Egyptian, Romans and Greeks were
also not lagging behind. Some form or the other of ragging was found in
their societies.
13. Ragging is not a new phenomenon. It existed even in older times. It
was part of civilised societies. In ancient seats of learning, e.g., Berytus
and Athens ragging was prevalent. In army schools of England ragging
existed as a tradition. Later on this tradition took its root in medical and
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/202439
2025:KER:46803engineering colleges. In English society ragging took the form of freshers
being paraded on street which caused much annoyance not only to
freshers but even to general public especially girls.
14. Ragging is a form of systematic and sustained physical, mental and
sexual abuse of fresh students at the college/university/any other
educational institution at the hands of senior students of the same
institution and sometimes even by outsiders. Although some form of
ragging is present in every educational institution but serious abuses of
human rights take place generally in medical and engineering colleges
and Armed Forces. The form and effect of ragging differ from institution
to institution. It creates a sense of fear in the minds of first year students
and they become apprehensive of unforeseen incidents which later
comes true and culminates in actual form of action.
15. Ragging is “display of noisy, disorderly conduct and great high spirits
considered by perpetrators (raggers) as excellent fun and by many
outsiders as a bloody nuisance”. Another meaning of ragging is “to
question vigorously and jocularly, horseplay or assail roughly and
noisily”. Yet another definition of ragging refers to popular Spanish
game of “Bull-Fight”, wherein Bull is shown red ‘rag’ and a person shouts
which infuriates the Bull in fighting.
16. As noted above “Ragging” means display of noisy, disorderly conduct
or doing any act which causes or is likely to cause physical or
psychological harm or raise apprehension or fear or shame or
embarrassment to a student in any educational institution and includes,
(a) teasing, abusing of, playing practical jokes on, or causing hurt to, such
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/202440
2025:KER:46803students; or
(b) asking the student to do any act or perform something which such
student will not, in the ordinary course, willingly do.
17. “Ragging” means doing an act which causes or is likely to cause insult
or annoyance or fear or apprehension or threat or intimidation or
outraging of modesty or injury to a student.
18. “Ragging” means causing, inducing, compelling or forcing a student,
whether by way of a practical joke or otherwise, to do any act which
detracts from human dignity or violates his person or exposes him to
ridicule or to forbear from doing any lawful act, by intimidating,
wrongfully restraining, wrongfully confining, or injuring him or by using
criminal force to him or by holding out to him any threat of such
intimidation, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, injury or the
use of criminal force.
19. The word “ragging” colloquially means to tease or play practical jokes
on someone, specially on students who are the fresh entrants in the
schools, colleges, Universities or any other educational institutions. In
the beginning, it was a way of introduction of the first year students in
the institutions which gradually has become not only serious problem
but also a social stigma. While in the age of a child in cradle, it was a
harmless practice by senior students over their juniors. Regarding the
origin or initiative steps of the ragging, it can be traced back to the
Seventh or Eighth Century A.D.”
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
41
2025:KER:46803
22.2 In paragraph 22 of the said judgment, it has been stated thus:
“Now ragging has acquired a new heinous meaning which indicates 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, indulging in rowdy or undisciplined activities which
causes or is likely to cause annoyance, hardship or psychological harm or
to raise fear or apprehension thereof in a fresher or a junior student or
asking the student to do any act or perform something which such
student will not do in the ordinary course and which has the effect of
causing or generating a sense of shame or embarrassment so as to
adversely affect the physique or psyche of a fresher or a junior student.”
Regulations of the University Grants Commission on curbing the menace
of Ragging.
23. The University Grants Commission has framed Regulations,
laid down comprehensively, for curbing the menace of ragging in higher
educational institutions. Punishments have been provided for the
students found indulging in ragging activities in educational
institutions. The consequences to the institutions that fail to take
effective measures to curb ragging have also been provided in Clause 9
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
42
2025:KER:46803
of the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher
Educational Institutions 2009.
23.1 Clause 9 further provides that the Head of the Institution
should take prompt and appropriate action against the persons whose
dereliction of duty leads to the incident. Regulation 9 is extracted
hereunder:
“9. Administrative action in the event of ragging. –
9.1 The institution shall punish a student found guilty of ragging after
following the procedure and in the manner prescribed hereinunder:
a) The Anti-Ragging Committee of the institution shall take an
appropriate decision, in regard to punishment or otherwise, depending
on the facts of each incident of ragging and nature and gravity of the
incident of ragging established in the recommendations of the Anti-
Ragging Squad.
b) The Anti-Ragging Committee may, depending on the nature and
gravity of the guilt established by the Anti-Ragging Squad, award, to
those found guilty, one or more of the following punishments, namely:
i. Suspension from attending classes and academic privileges.
ii. Withholding/ withdrawing scholarship/ fellowship and other benefits.
iii. Debarring from appearing in any test/ examination or other
evaluation process.
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
43
2025:KER:46803iv. Withholding results.
v. Debarring from representing the institution in any regional, national,
or international meet, tournament, youth festival, etc.
vi. Suspension/ expulsion from the hostel.
vii. Cancellation of admission.
viii. Rustication from the institution for period ranging from one to four
semesters.
ix. Expulsion from the institution and consequent debarring from
admission to any other institution for a specified period.
Provided that where the persons committing or abetting the act of
ragging are not identified, the institution shall resort to collective
punishment.
c) An appeal against the order of punishment by the Anti-Ragging
Committee shall lie,
i. in case of an order of an institution, affiliated to or constituent part, of
a University, to the Vice-Chancellor of the University;
ii. in case of an order of a University, to its Chancellor.
iii. in case of an institution of national importance created by an Act of
Parliament, to the Chairman or Chancellor of the institution, as the case
may be.
9.2 Where an institution, being constituent of, affiliated to, or recognized
by a University, fails to comply with any of the provisions of these
Regulations or fails to curb ragging effectively, such University may take
any one or more of the following actions, namely;
i. Withdrawal of affiliation/recognition or other privileges conferred.
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
44
2025:KER:46803
ii. Prohibiting such institution from presenting any student or students
then undergoing any programme of study therein for the award of any
degree/diploma of the University.
Provided that where an institution is prohibited from students, the
Commission shall make suitable arrangements for the other students so
as to ensure that such students are able to pursue their academic studies.
iii. Withholding grants allocated to it by the university, if any
iv. Withholding any grants chanellised through the university to the
institution.
v. Any other appropriate penalty within the powers of the university.
9.3 Where in the opinion of the appointing authority, a lapse is
attributable to any member of the faulty or staff of the institution, in the
matter of reporting or taking prompt action to prevent an incident of
ragging or who display an apathetic or insensitive attitude towards
complaints of ragging, or who fail to take timely steps whether required
under these Regulations or otherwise, to prevent an incident or incidents
of ragging, then such authority shall initiate departmental disciplinary
action, in accordance with the prescribed procedure of the institution,
against such member of the faulty or staff.
Provided that where such lapse is attributable to the Head of the
institution, the authority designated to appoint such Head shall take such
departmental disciplinary action; and such action shall be without
prejudice to any action that may be taken under the penal laws for
abetment of ragging for failure to take timely steps in the prevention of
ragging or punishing any student found guilty of ragging.
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
45
2025:KER:46803
9.4 The Commission shall, in respect of any institution that fails to take
adequate steps to prevent ragging, or fails to act in accordance with these
Regulations or fails to punish perpetrators or incidents of ragging
suitably, take one of more of the following measures, namely;
i. Withdrawal of declaration of fitness to receive grants under section 12B
of the Act.
ii. Withholding any grant allocated.
iii. Declaring the institution ineligible for consideration for any
assistance under any of the general or special assistance the programmes
of Commission.
iv. Informing the general public, including potential candidates for
admission. through displayed notice prominently in the or suitable
media and posted on the website of the Commission, declaring that the
institution does not possess the minimum academic standards.
v. Taking such other action within its powers as it may deem fit and
impose such other penalties as may be provided in the Act for such
duration of time as the institution complies with the provisions of these
Regulations.
Provided that the action taken under this clause by the Commission
against any institution shall be shared with all Councils.”
Analysis:
24. Despite the recommendations of the Raghavan Committee
Report, the Supreme Court directions, and the UGC Regulations, the
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/202446
2025:KER:46803menace of ragging has not been able to be curbed. That resulted in the
unfortunate incident wherein a young, promising student lost his life at
the prime of his youth, 21 years. Unfortunately, despite the Three-
member Committee finding the petitioners guilty of dereliction of
duties, no effective action has been taken to date on mere technicalities.
24.1 The insensitivity of the University in taking effective action
against the persons who have been found guilty of dereliction of duty in
the Three-member Committee report, as well as the Vice Chancellor of
the University, who has been found guilty in the Commission’s report,
leaves this Court in shock and disbelief.
24.2 The Chancellor’s powers are defined in Section 9 of the Kerala
Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act 2010. The Chancellor has
the authority to take action against the Vice Chancellor, has the power
to have any matter investigated and exercises all the powers over any
authority, being the highest authority of the University. Section 9 of the
Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act 2010 defines the
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
47
2025:KER:46803
powers of the Chancellor, which are extracted hereunder:
“9. The Chancellor.–
(1) The Governor of Kerala shall, by virtue of his office, be the Chancellor
of the University.
(2) The chancellor shall be the Head of the University and shall, when
present, preside over the convocation of the University and may issue
directions to the Vice Chancellor to convene the meeting of any authority
of the University for specific purposes wherever necessary and the Vice
Chancellor shall submit the minutes of such meeting to the Chancellor
for perusal.
(3) No honorary degree shall be conferred by the University upon any
person without the approval of the Chancellor.
(4) The Chancellor may call for such information and record relating to
any affairs of the University and issue such directions thereupon as the
Chancellor may deem fit in the interest of the University, and the
authorities and officers of the University shall comply with such
directions.
(5) The Chancellor may after taking report in writing from the
ViceChancellor suspend or modify any resolution, order or proceedings
of any authority, body, committee or officer, which in the opinion of the
Chancellor is not in conformity with this Act, Statutes, Ordinances or
Regulations or is not in the interest of the University and the University,
authority, body, committee and officer shall comply with the same:
Provided that, before making any such order, the Chancellor shall call
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/202448
2025:KER:46803upon the University, authority, body, committee or as the case may be,
the Officer to show cause within the period specified, why such an order
should not be made, and if any cause is shown, the Chancellor shall
consider the same and wherever he deems it necessary, after consulting
the Government, decide the action to be taken in the matter, and such
decision shall be final.
(6) Where, in the opinion of the Chancellor, the conduct of any elected or
nominated or appointed or co-opted member in the bodies of the
University is detrimental to the smooth functioning of the University or
any authority or body or committee, the Chancellor may, after giving
such member an opportunity to offer explanation in writing and after
considering such explanation, if any, and being satisfied that it is
necessary so to do, suspend or disqualify such member for such period as
the Chancellor may deem fit.
(7) (i) The Chancellor shall have the right to cause an inspection to be
made by such person or persons or body of persons, as he may direct, of
the University, its buildings, hospitals, libraries, museums, workshops
and equipments of any college, institution or hostel maintained,
administered or recognised by the University and of the teaching and
other works conducted by or on behalf of the University or under its
auspices and of the conduct of examinations or other functions of the
University and to cause an inquiry to be made in like manner regarding
any matter connected with the administration or finances of the
University;
(ii) The Chancellor shall, in every case, give due notice to the University
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/202449
2025:KER:46803of his intention to cause an inspection or inquiry to be made and
University shall be entitled to appoint a representative, who shall have
the right to be present and to be heard at the inspection or enquiry;
(iii) After an inspection or inquiry has been caused to be made, the
Chancellor may address the Vice-Chancellor on the result of such
inspection or inquiry and the Vice-Chancellor shall communicate to the
Management Council or Board of Management, the views of the
Chancellor and call upon the Management Council or Board of
Management to communicate to the Chancellor through him its opinion
thereon within such time as may have been specified by the Chancellor.
If the Management Council or Board of Management communicates its
opinion within the ‘specified time limit, after taking into consideration
that opinion or where the Management Council or Board of Management
fails to communicate its opinion in time, after the specified time limit is
over, the Chancellor may proceed and advise the Management Council or
Board of Management upon the action to be taken by it, and fix a time
limit for taking such action;
(iv) Management Council or Board of Management shall within such time
limit as fixed, report to the Chancellor through the Vice-Chancellor the
action which has been taken or is.proposed to be taken on the advice
tendered by him;
(v) The Chancellor may, where action has not been taken by the
Management Council or Board of Management to his satisfaction within
the time limit fixed and after considering any explanation furnished for
representation made by the Management Council or Board of
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
50
2025:KER:46803
Management, issue such direction as the Chancellor may think fit and the
Management Council or Board of Management and other authority
concerned shall comply with such directions;
(vi) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding clauses, if at
any time the Chancellor is of the opinion that in any matter the affairs of
the University are not managed in furtherance of the objectives of the
University or in accordance with the provisions of this Act, Statutes and
Regulations or that special measures are desirable to maintain the
standard of University, teaching, examinations, research, administration
or finances, the Chancellor may indicate to the Management Council or
Board of Management through the Vice-Chancellor any matter in regard
to which he desires an explanation and call upon Management Council or
Board of Management to offer such explanation within such time as may
be specified by him. If the Management Council or Board of Management
fails to offer any explanation within the time specified or offers an
explanation which in the opinion of the Chancellor, is not satisfactory,
the Chancellor may issue such directions as appear to, him to be
necessary, and the Management Council or Board of Management or any
other authority concerned shall comply with such directions;
(vii) The Board of Management shall furnish such information relating to
the administration and finances of the University as the Chancellor, may,
from time to time, require.
(8) (i) The Chancellor shall when an emergency arises have the right to
suspend or dismiss any of the authorities of the University and take
measures for the interim administration of the University;
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
51
2025:KER:46803
(ii) An appeal shall lie to the Chancellor against any order of dismissal
passed by the Board of Management or the Vice-Chancellor against any
person in the service of the University;
(iii) An appeal under the above clause shall be filed within thirty days
from the date of serving the order of dismissal on the persons concerned;
(iv) The Chancellor shall before passing any order on an appeal as above,
refer the matter for advice to a tribunal appointed by him for the
purpose;
(9) The Chancellor shall have the power to remove the Vice-Chancellor
from office by an order in writing on charges of misappropriation,
misconduct, mismanagement of funds or any other good and sufficient
reason:
Provided that before taking action under this sub-section such charges
be proved by and inquiry conducted by a person who is or has been Judge
of High Court or Supreme Court appointed by the Chancellor for the
purpose:
Provided further that Vice-Chancellor shall not be removed under this
section unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing
cause against the action proposed to be taken against him.
(10) The Chancellor shall exercise such other powers as may be conferred
upon or vested in the Chancellor by or under this Act or Statutes.”
24.3 From the perusal of Section 9, it is evident that the
Chancellor, being the Head of the University, is vested with wide-
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
52
2025:KER:46803
ranging powers over the authorities of the University and the University
itself. The Chancellor is empowered to issue directions to the Vice
Chancellor to convene a meeting of any authority of the University for
specific purposes whenever necessary, and the Vice Chancellor is duty-
bound to submit the minutes of such a meeting to the Chancellor for
perusal and further direction. The Chancellor is also empowered to call
for such information and records relating to any affairs of the University
and may issue such direction thereupon as may be required in the
interest of the University. The authorities and officers of the University
are duty-bound to comply with such directions. Not only this, the
Chancellor may, after taking a report in writing from the Vice
Chancellor, suspend or modify any resolution, order or proceedings of
any authority, body, committee or officer, if in the opinion of the
Chancellor such resolution, order or proceedings are not in conformity
with the Act, Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations or not in the interest
of the University. The University, Authority, Body, Committee or Officer
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
53
2025:KER:46803
is duty-bound to comply with the same. The only rider is that before
making such an order, the Chancellor should issue a notice of show
cause. After receiving the reply, action can be taken, and that decision
shall be final.
24.4 Sub-section (7) of Section 9 confers the powers on the
Chancellor to cause an inspection by such person or persons or body of
persons of the University, its buildings, hospitals, libraries, museums,
workshops and equipment of any college, institution or hostel and may
institute an inquiry to be made in any matter connected with the
administration or finances of the University. After an inspection or
inquiry, the Chancellor may address the Vice Chancellor on the result of
such inspection or inquiry, and the Vice Chancellor is required to
communicate to the Management Council or Board of Management the
views of the Chancellor and call upon the Management Council or Board
of Management to communicate to the Chancellor through him its
opinion thereon within the time as may be specified by the Chancellor.
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
54
2025:KER:46803
In the Management Council or the Board of Management communicates
its opinion within the specified time limit, or where the Management
Council or Board of Management fails to communicate its opinion in
time, the Chancellor may proceed and advise the Management Council
or Board of Management upon the action to be taken by it and fix a time
limit for taking such action. The Management Council or Board of
Management are duty-bound to report to the Chancellor through the
Vice Chancellor the action which has been taken or is proposed to be
taken on the advice tendered by the Chancellor. The chancellor may,
where action has not been taken by the Management Council or Board
of Management to his satisfaction within the time limit fixed. issue such
directions as the Chancellor may think fit, and the Management Council
or the Board of Management and other authorities concerned shall
comply with such directions. The Chancellor shall have the power in an
emergent situation to suspend or dismiss any authorities of the
University and take measures for interim administration of the
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
55
2025:KER:46803
University. The Chancellor has the power to remove the Vice Chancellor
from the Office by an order in writing on charges of misappropriation,
misconduct, mismanagement of funds or any other good and sufficient
reason.
24.5 Thus, the Chancellor has very wide and overarching powers,
including the power to direct the authorities to implement the
directions, and the authorities of the University are duty-bound to
comply with those directions. The Chancellor is also empowered to
remove, suspend and dismiss any of the authorities of the University,
including the Vice Chancellor. Even the Board of Management is obliged
to carry out the directions of the Chancellor, and the action taken is to
be reported to the Chancellor.
25. Thus, on the spacious grounds taken by the University based
on the letter written by the Chancellor on 12.08.2024 for not proceeding
against the petitioners is a ruse to cover up the misdeed, dereliction of
duty and inaction of the petitioners, which have resulted in the tragic
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
56
2025:KER:46803
incident of a young and promising student losing his life. The letter
dated 12.08.2024 in Ext.P15 does not in any manner restrain the
University from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings against
the petitioner. But it only calls for the report and the decision of the
Board of Management, which the Board of Management is obliged and
duty-bound to furnish to the Chancellor.
Conclusion:
26. This Court is of the view that the letter dated 12.08.2024 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 constituted by the Chairman on the incident as well as the
Commission of Inquiry. The decision of the University to keep the
disciplinary proceedings in abeyance on the spacious ground that the
highest authority has intervened is absolutely incorrect, untenable and
against the scheme of the University Act and the Statutes of the
University.
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
57
2025:KER:46803
26.1 The Board of Management has also wrongly construed the
letter dated 24.09.2024 (Ext.P17) written by the Office of the Vice
Chancellor, and such an interpretation placed on the provisions of the
University Act and the powers of the Chancellor is contrary to the
express provision itself. The Board of Management is obliged to
implement the directions issued by the Chancellor. The University’s
decision, in its Board of Management meeting held on 24.09.2024
[Ext.P17], to reinstate the petitioners and transfer them to
Thiruvazhamkunnu College of Avian Science and Management, despite
them having been found guilty by a Three-member Committee, is
unjustified, insensitive and against the directions issued by the
Chancellor.
26.2 In view of the communication dated 27.09.2024 of the Office
of His Excellency, Governor/Chancellor sent to the Vice Chancellor, the
University is directed to proceed against the petitioners in departmental
proceedings and finalise the same expeditiously in accordance with the
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
58
2025:KER:46803
law, preferably within three months. The petitioners are directed to
fully co-operate in the disciplinary proceedings.
26.3 The University must ensure appropriate action against the
erring students who would have been found responsible for the incident
in which Sidharthan J S, a second-year BVSc and AH course of the
College, lost his life in the prime of his youth.
26.4 This Court is of the view that though the UGC Anti-ragging
Regulations are stringent, they have not deterred the unruly behaviour
and conduct of the students. The Regulations are not enough to curb the
ragging activity in its entirety. The State, therefore, must frame a
stringent law providing severe punishment for ragging activities in
educational institutions to stop this menace so that no other student
loses his/her life for the unruly, rowdy conduct by the undisciplined
students. The State shall also make sure that the guilty found does not
go unpunished.
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
59
2025:KER:46803
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
All Interlocutory Applications as regards interim matters stand closed.
Sd/-
D. K. SINGH
JUDGE
jjj
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
60
2025:KER:46803
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35376/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 5/3/2024 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING OF THE
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL DATED 24/9/2024
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADDL. CHIEF
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR DATED 27/9/2024
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1A True copy of the letter dated 12.8.2024 issued from the office of the 1st
respondent to the 3rd respondent
Exhibit R1B True copy of the letter dated 18.9.2024 issued to the petitioner in WP C
No 33291 of 2024
Exhibit R1C A true copy of the interim order dated 23.9.2024 issued in W P C No
33291 of 2024
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
61
2025:KER:46803
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33291/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 04/03/2024 ISSUED
BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KVASU, SEEKING EXPLANATIONS FROM
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER ON 04/03/2024 ITSELF, TO EXHIBIT P1 SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KVASU/GA/C3/1214/2024 DATED
05/03/2024 PASSED BY THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
OF THE KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/03/2024 OF THE GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF THE KVASU CONSTITUTED AN
ENQUIRY COMMITTEE PURPORTEDLY UNDER STATUTES 215 TO 229 OF
THE KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
STATUTES, 2014
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. KVASU/GA/C3/1214/2024(2)
DATED 02/04/2024 OF THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF KVASU APPROVING
THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY MEMO DATED 02/04/2024 ISSUED BY
THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 16/04/2024 IN ANSWER TO EXHIBIT P6 ENQUIRY
MEMO
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/06/2024 INFORMING THE
PETITIONER ABOUT THE SUBMISSION OF REPORT BY THE INQUIRY
COMMITTEE AND CALLING UPON THE PETITONER TO SUBMIT HIS
REPLY AGAINST IMPOSITION OF MAJORY PENALTIES AS PROVIDED
UNDER STATUTE 226
Exhibit P9 . A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF ENQUIRY SUBMITTED BY THE
ENQUIRY COMMITTEE TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF KVASU DATED
NIL
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CHARGES ISSUED BY THE
REGISTRAR TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25/06/2024
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENSE IN RESPONSE TO
EXHIBIT P8 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25/07/2024
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/08/2024 ISSUED BY THE
REGISTRAR, KVASU
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 04/09/2024 ADJOURNING
THE PROCEEDINGS SCHEDULED ON 05/09/2024
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY DATED
WP(C) Nos. 33291/2024, 35376/2024
62
2025:KER:46803
05/07/2024 BY JUSTICE A HARIPRASAD OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ON 14/08/2024
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/08/2024 ISSUED BY THE
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR TO THE VICE
CHANCELLOR OF THE KVASU
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/09/2024 ISSUED BY THE
REGISTRAR, KVASU
Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL OF THE KVASU UNIVERSITY HELD ON
24/09/2024
Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/09/2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT