The Unfinished Battle Against Ragging in India

The alarming 208% surge in ragging complaints with UGC over the past decade is a stark reminder of the systemic failure of India's higher education institutions to tackle this deep-seated menace. Despite stringent legal frameworks and repeated interventions, ragging continues to persist, often masked as harmless initiation rituals. The recent acknowledgment by University Grants Commission (UGC) Chairman M. Jagadesh Kumar that “weak implementation of anti-ragging regulations within institutions may give perpetrators safe passage” underscores the ineffectiveness of existing mechanisms in preventing these acts of humiliation and abuse. If academic institutions are to fulfil their role as centres of knowledge, personal growth, and inclusivity, dismantling this toxic culture must be a top priority.

At its core, ragging is not an act of camaraderie but a structured form of psychological and physical coercion. It is rooted in an assertion of dominance, where power asymmetries between seniors and freshers are exploited. Over the years, its nature has evolved beyond physical aggression to include verbal abuse, cyberbullying, social ostracisation, and mental harassment. The digital era has exacerbated this issue, with anonymous online platforms, social media groups, and messaging services becoming conduits for intimidation. Unlike traditional ragging, which often left visible evidence, cyber-ragging is harder to detect and even harder to penalise under the current legal framework.

India’s regulatory framework, at least on paper, appears robust. The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Vishwa Jagriti Mission v. Central Government (2001) laid the groundwork for the UGC’s 2009 Anti-Ragging Regulations, which introduced measures such as mandatory affidavits from students and parents, round-the-clock anti-ragging helplines, institutional committees, and stringent penalties—including expulsion for offenders. However, the poor enforcement of these provisions has rendered them largely ineffective. Many institutions prefer to shield their reputations rather than address ragging complaints transparently, leading to rampant underreporting and, in some cases, victim-blaming. Students who speak out against ragging often face intimidation or social isolation, discouraging others from filing complaints. The psychological toll of ragging is another dimension that institutions have failed to address. Severe cases have resulted in student suicides, while many others suffer from long-term anxiety, depression, and diminished academic performance. The stigma surrounding mental health, combined with institutional reluctance to acknowledge ragging’s impact, further exacerbates the crisis. If ragging has been legally condemned and criminalised, why does it persist? The answer lies in institutional inertia, selective enforcement of regulations, and a failure to adapt preventive mechanisms to the changing nature of ragging.

A meaningful response to this crisis requires a multi-pronged approach. The enforcement of existing anti-ragging laws must be non-negotiable. Institutions found complicit in concealing incidents should face strict financial and administrative penalties, as outlined in the UGC framework. Independent anti-ragging audits and surprise inspections should be mandated, ensuring that compliance is monitored rigorously. As per the 2009 UGC regulations, colleges must prominently display the names and contact details of anti-ragging panel members across their campuses to ensure easy access for students seeking help. Posters detailing penalties for ragging should be placed in high-visibility areas such as hostels, libraries, and common spaces. Additionally, institutions must install CCTV cameras in key locations and introduce mandatory compliance reporting to document preventive measures. Technology must be leveraged to curb cyber-ragging. AI-driven monitoring of student interactions, anonymous digital reporting mechanisms, and real-time tracking of complaints could help identify and prevent online harassment. Institutions must also establish dedicated response teams to handle cases of cyberbullying, ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable under anti-ragging provisions. Faculty and hostel staff must be trained to identify early signs of ragging and intervene proactively. The role of peer-led initiatives is equally crucial. Encouraging student-led anti-ragging advocacy groups, along with sensitisation workshops, could help dismantle the hierarchical culture that enables ragging. Creating a culture where reporting ragging is seen as an act of responsibility rather than betrayal is essential in fostering an environment where students feel safe to seek redressal.

Ultimately, the failure to eradicate ragging is not just a failure of policy—it is a moral failure of educational institutions. When students enter college, they should step into a space of intellectual curiosity and respect, not a culture of intimidation and coercion. The battle against ragging must not be waged in phases but pursued relentlessly until it is no longer an institutional reality. Only then can India’s higher education system truly fulfil its promise of being a safe and nurturing space for young minds.

By -Dr Vineeth Thomas (HOD Political Science -SRM University AP) and Tahshin Shifana Naushadali (Student – BA -hons. Political Science – SRM University -AP)