ABSTRACT

Ragging, once misconceived as a benign initiation ritual, is frequently trivialised as a harmless rite of passage but is now unequivocally recognised as a grave violation of human dignity and a serious threat to young students’ safety and mental well-being in higher educational institutions. The transition into college marks a critical and formative phase in a student’s life, one characterised by intellectual exploration, professional orientation and social integration. At this vulnerable threshold, students seek mentorship, belonging and academic growth. However, when intimidation replaces guidance, and humiliation supplants collegiality, the consequences extend far beyond momentary discomfort. Ragging disrupts the psychological security essential for learning, corrodes institutional culture and undermines the foundational principles upon which higher education is founded.

It is precisely this erosion of dignity and trust that has compelled a re-evaluation of ragging within the legal and academic discourse. What was once defended as a mechanism of social integration is now increasingly understood, in light of contemporary evidence and judicial recognition, as a form of psychological abuse that undermines both individuals’ well-being and institutional integrity. The consequences are neither incidental nor fleeting; they often manifest as anxiety, isolation, diminished academic confidence, and long-term emotional distress. Against this backdrop, this article explores the socio-psychological harm caused by ragging, analyses the statutory and regulatory framework governing its prohibition in India and examines the structured redressal mechanisms designed to safeguard victims and ensure institutional accountability. It argues that while legal prohibition remains essential, the lasting eradication of ragging requires a cultural transformation within academic spaces, one that consciously replaces hierarchy with mentorship and indifference with empathy.

I. INTRODUCTION: THE VULNERABLE THRESHOLD OF ENTRY

Every year, when new batches step into college, they carry fresh ambition, intellectual curiosity and nervous excitement with them, marking the beginning of a transformative journey in which professional identity, ethical values and lifelong relationships begin to take shape. For many students, this transformation represents their first sustained experience of autonomy away from familial structures, a critical psychological juncture characterised by intellectual exploration, social integration, and the search for belonging. Ideally, these formative days should be filled with mentorship, peer support, the enrichment of academic engagement and the anticipation of meaningful professional exposure.

Yet, for an unfortunate few, this foundational period is overshadowed not by growth and discovery but by fear, humiliation and harassment; manifesting in psychological degradation, social alienation, coercive intimidation and at times even physical endangerment. What is often defended as ‘integration’ or framed as a harmless initiation from the perspective of seniors may, in reality, be experienced by juniors as powerlessness, anxiety and emotional distress. The dissonance between expectation and lived experience is not merely situational; it can be profoundly destabilising, particularly at a stage when identity formation and confidence are most fragile.

This practice, once falsely romanticised as a ‘rite of passage’, is now rightly condemned as a serious criminal offence and a gross violation of human rights. Contemporary legal and academic discourse increasingly recognises ragging not as a cultural residue of collegiate tradition but as a systemic abuse that undermines dignity, disrupts psychological security and corrodes institutional integrity. Understanding ragging, therefore, requires attention not only to its immediate but also to its deeper psychological impact and the broader legal framework designed to prevent and redress it.

II. DEFINITIONAL SCOPE AND LEGAL RECOGNITION

The definitional contours of ragging under the Indian regulatory framework are intentionally broad and expansive. It encompasses any disorderly conduct, whether verbal, physical or psychological, that causes annoyance, hardship, fear, shame or psychological harm to a fresher or a junior student.  The definition extends beyond overt acts of violence to include subtle forms of coercion, humiliation or intimidation that compromise dignity or emotional security. It further includes compelling a student to perform acts they would not ordinarily undertake, particularly when such conduct affects their bodily autonomy, self-respect, or mental well-being. By adopting an inclusive formulation, the law seeks to prevent the trivialisation of ragging and to capture its diverse and often insidious manifestations.

The University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations on ‘Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Education Institutions’, 2009[1], represent a decisive regulatory response to this problem. The regulations categorically declare ragging to be a criminal offence and mandate a zero tolerance approach across all higher educational institutions. The regulatory language is unambiguous: No act of ragging, whether major or minor, shall go unnoticed, and no perpetrator shall go unpunished. Institutions are therefore placed under an affirmative obligation not merely to prohibit ragging in principle but to actively prevent, monitor and penalise it.

Judicial intervention in University of Kerala v. Council of Principals of Colleges, 2009 Legal Eagle (SC) 184, Supreme Court of India recognised ragging as a systemic and deeply entrenched problem requiring comprehensive preventive and punitive measures. The court emphasised that educational institutions, as spaces dedicated to intellectual growth and ethical formation, cannot tolerate practices rooted in humiliation and coercion. Pursuant to the Court’s directions, structured monitoring mechanisms, including anti-ragging committees, anti-ragging squads and a national helpline[2], were institutionalised to ensure transparency, victim protection and administrative accountability.

The legal position, therefore, admits of no ambiguity: Ragging is neither a cultural tradition nor a permissible form of initiation; it is a punishable offence that attracts both institutional sanctions and criminal liability.

III. PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT: BEYOND IMMEDIATE HARM

While legal frameworks articulate prohibitions and penalties, the deeper and more enduring damage of ragging lies in its psychological consequences. The harm inflicted is not confined to isolated incidents of discomfort; rather, it penetrates the emotional and cognitive foundations upon which young adults build confidence, identity and social trust.

A. The Experience of Humiliation

Humiliation is not a fleeting or superficial emotion; it constitutes an assault on identity itself. When a student is compelled to perform degrading acts, is subjected to verbal abuse or placed in situations deliberately designed to induce embarrassment, the injury extends beyond the moment of occurrence. Such experiences destabilise self-worth and erode personal dignity. At a developmental stage where identity formation is ongoing, enforced subordination can leave deep psychological imprints.

Neuroscientific research indicates that sustained fear and social humiliation activate stress responses in the brain comparable to those triggered by physical threats. In the context of higher education, where peer acceptance, belonging and social validation are integral to emotional stability, these stress responses may be intensified. The college environment, intended to foster intellectual growth, can thus become a site of psychological insecurity when ragging is permitted to persist.

B. Anxiety, Depression, and Trauma

The psychological effects of ragging often extend into a clinically significant domain. The UGC’s Information, Education and Communication (IEC)[3] Guidelines expressly acknowledge that ragging can result in severe adverse consequences, including depression, anxiety, and even suicide.

Accounts of victims experiencing post-traumatic stress symptoms, sleep disturbances, academic decline, and social withdrawal are neither rare nor anecdotal; they reflect a recurring pattern of emotional harm.

The transformation can be gradual yet profound. A student who once participated actively in class may begin to avoid group settings. Attendance may diminish. Concentration may weaken. Confidence in academic ability may erode. What appears as disengagement often masks an internal struggle rooted in humiliation and fear. The cumulative impact, therefore, extends well beyond the initial episode of ragging.

C. The Long-Term Academic and Professional Cost

In professional courses such as medicine, dentistry, engineering, or law, early academic engagement is particularly critical. The initial years of training lay the foundation for technical competence, ethical formation, and professional confidence. Psychological distress during this formative phase can impair learning trajectories. Reduce clinical or practical confidence and compromise long-term professional development.

The Raghavan Committee, constituted under Supreme Court directions, observed the prevalence of ragging and emphasised its link to dropouts and institutional distress. In this sense, ragging is not merely an individual harm; it is a systemic threat to academic integrity.

IV. THE REGULATORY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Recognising the gravity and systemic nature of ragging, India has developed a layered anti-ragging framework designed to integrate prevention, deterrence, monitoring and redress. This framework reflects the understanding that ragging cannot be addressed solely through punitive measures; it requires institutional vigilance, regulatory oversight and clearly articulated accountability mechanisms.

A. Zero Tolerance Policy

The UGC Regulations, 2009[4], framed pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court, are mandatory for all higher educational institutions in India. These Regulations institutionalise a strict zerotolerance policy and impose affirmative duties upon universities and colleges to prevent and penalise ragging.

Institutions are required to constitute Anti-Ragging Committees and Anti-Ragging Squads, ensure wide publicity of anti-ragging policies, incorporate explicit prohibitory clauses in prospectuses and admission materials, and regularly report compliance to regulatory authorities. A significant preventive measure mandated under the regulatory framework is the requirement that students and their parents or guardians submit anti-ragging undertakings at the time of admission. Through these formal declarations, students affirm that they will neither engage in nor abet ragging, while parents acknowledge awareness of the legal consequences. These undertakings serve not merely as procedural formalities but as instruments of deterrence, reinforcing individual accountability at the very threshold of entry into higher education.

Beyond regulatory measures, legislative efforts such as The Prohibition and Eradication of Ragging Bill, 2019[5], further reflect the continuing recognition of ragging as a matter warranting comprehensive statutory intervention. The Bill sought to consolidate prohibitions, strengthen penal provisions, and enhance enforcement mechanisms to ensure uniformity and greater deterrence.

Although not enacted into law, its introduction underscores the evolving legislative commitment to eradicating ragging through structured and enforceable safeguards.

Crucially, institutional inaction is itself subject to sanction. Failure to take adequate preventive or punitive steps may attract regulatory consequences against the institution, thereby reinforcing that responsibility lies not only with individual offenders but also with administrative authorities.

B. Institutional and Criminal Consequences

The anti-ragging framework contemplates both institutional sanctions and criminal liability. Students found guilty of ragging may face suspension from classes and academic privileges, withholding of examination results, cancellation of admission, expulsion from the institution and imposition of monetary fines. In addition, ragging may attract criminal prosecution, with imprisonment extending up to two years.

An important feature of the regulatory design is the provision for collective punishment in circumstances where individual perpetrators cannot be identified. This approach reinforces community responsibility and discourages passive complicity or silence. The framework seeks to dismantle the culture of impunity that often sustains ragging practices.

Taken together, these measures signal a decisive shift in the treatment of ragging from a tolerated cultural aberration to a legally actionable offence carrying serious academic and criminal consequences.

V. THE REDRESSAL MECHANISM: ENSURING TRANSPARENCY AND PROTECTION

One of the most significant advancements in India’s anti-ragging framework is the establishment of a structured, multi-tiered and transparent complaint mechanism. Recognising that victims often hesitate to report incidents due to fear of retaliation or administrative indifference, the regulatory architecture has been designed to minimise procedural barriers and ensure institutional accountability at multiple levels.

A. Multiple Reporting Channels

Victims of ragging are not confined to a single reporting authority. Complaints may be submitted to the Institutional Anti-Ragging Committee or Anti-Ragging Squad, the Head of the Institution, hostel wardens, faculty members or directly to local police authorities. In addition, the National Anti-Ragging Helpline[6] operates as a 24 ×7 toll-free mechanism accessible to students across the country.

This multiplicity of reporting channels reduces dependence on a single administrative gatekeeper and diminishes the likelihood of suppression. By diversifying access points, the framework acknowledges the psychological vulnerability of victims and seeks to create a supportive and accessible environment for grievance articulation.

B. Automatic Escalation Protocol

A distinctive feature of the national anti-ragging mechanism is its automatic escalation protocol. When a complaint is logged through the national helpline or online portal, it is electronically transmitted simultaneously to multiple authorities, including the University Vice-Chancellor, the College Principal, the relevant police authorities, and the concerned statutory Professional Council.

This system of parallel notification prevents administrative inaction and curtails the possibility of institutional cover-ups. By ensuring that several supervisory bodies are informed at once, the framework embeds oversight into the complaint process itself. Transparency is thus institutionalised rather than left to discretion.

C. Monitoring and Tracking

Each complaint registered through the official portal is assigned a unique tracking number, enabling the complainant to monitor the status and progress of the case. Importantly, closure of a complaint cannot occur without the written consent of the complainant, thereby safeguarding against premature or coerced resolution.

In instance of delay, negligence, or dissatisfaction with the institution's response, the matter is escalated to the designated Monitoring Agency and, where necessary, to the University Grants Commission and relevant regulatory councils. This layered review mechanism reinforces that accountability extends beyond the individual institution to national oversight bodies.

D. Protective Measures and Collective Responsibility

The framework also incorporates immediate protective safeguards. These may include the suspension of the accused during pendency of the investigation, restriction of access to campus or hostel facilities, confidentiality of the complainant’s identity and provision of counselling or safe accommodation where required. Such measures recognise that victim protection must be contemporaneous, not merely retrospective.

Further, liability is not confined solely to direct perpetrators. Abetment, participation or deliberate failure to report ragging may also attract disciplinary or legal consequences. By extending responsibility to bystanders and institutional actors, the framework seeks to dismantle cultures of silence and passive complicity.

VI. THE ETHICAL IMPERATIVE: BEYOND COMPLIANCE

While statutory measures provide necessary deterrence and institutional accountability, the eradication of ragging ultimately depends on deeper cultural transformation within academic spaces. Law can prohibit, regulate and punish; however, it cannot alone cultivate respect, empathy or moral responsibility. The persistence of ragging despite regulatory vigilance indicates that sustainable reform must extend beyond compliance and into the ethical fabric of the institutional life.

Higher education is predicated on intellectual freedom, ethical development, and mutual respect.

Universities and professional colleges are not merely sites of technical instruction; they are environments in which character is shaped, professional identity is formed, and civic values are internalised. Practices grounded in humiliation, coercion, and enforced subordination stand in direct contradiction to these foundational principles. When hierarchy is weaponised rather than humanised, the educational mission itself is compromised.

Leadership within academic communities, whether exercised by administrators, faculty, or senior students, must therefore consciously prioritise mentorship over hierarchy, dialogue over dominance, and empathy over endurance testing. A culture that welcomes rather than intimidates, guides rather than subjugates and supports rather than silences is essential to the integrity of higher education.

VII. CONCLUSION: PROTECTING DIGNITY AT THE THRESHOLD OF PROFESSIONAL LIFE

Ragging is not a rite of passage; it is a rupture of trust at one of the most vulnerable stages of a young person’s life. Its psychological impact does not end with the incident itself; rather, it can reverberate across semesters, shaping academic trajectories, professional confidence and personal identity. What may be dismissed by some as transient initiation can, for others, become a defining experience of fear and humiliation

The legal framework in India reflects a clear and uncompromising stance: ragging is a criminal offence, a matter of human rights concern and an institutional failure when permitted to persist.

The development of structured reporting mechanisms, automatic escalation protocols, monitoring agencies and mandatory institutional accountability demonstrates a systemic commitment to transparency and deterrence. The law has spoken with clarity.

Yet law alone cannot cultivate safety. True reform requires institutions to nurture cultures in which dignity is non-negotiable, and respect is habitual rather than enforced. Academic communities must consciously foster environments where seniors welcome juniors as colleagues rather than subjects, where courage is expressed through support rather than subjugation

For students entering higher education, the first memory should be one of opportunity, intellectual discovery and belonging, not fear. Ultimately, the true measure of an academic community lies not in how it tests its newest members, but in how steadfastly it protects them.

_____________