The Supreme Court today sought replies from the University Grants Commission, the Medical Council of India and the All India Council for Technical Education on continuing ragging incidents in some educational institutions under their control despite a ban following the J.M. Lyngdoh committee recommendation.
They were given time till December 10 to submit their responses by a Bench of justices Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta after status reports from various educational institutions across the country was placed before it by amicus curiea Gopal Subramaniam.
The court rejected the contention of the National Students Union of India (NSUI), the student wing of the Congress, for making it a party in the case as it alleged that the committee headed by former Chief Election Commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh before making recommendation had not taken its views into consideration.
This was opposed by Subramaniam, who said a statement to this effect by the NSUI was “false” as the panel had heard the student wing of the Congress in detail before laying down the guidelines for prohibiting ragging.
The judges admonished the NSUI counsel for making such a statement at this late stage when the Lyngdoh committee recommendations had even been ordered to be implemented.
“In an educational institution you are not admitted as members of a political party but sent to pursue your studies. Are you for studies or doing politics on the campus. What should be your priority,” the court asked the NSUI lawyer.
The Bench said no parents send their children to a college to participate in students’ politics or harassing fellow students as they spend their hard earned money for their education and betterment of their career and the students as well as the authorities had to keep this in mind while enforcing the order against ragging.
Since the court from the status reports and media reports found that ragging was still continuing in several institutions and many students had fallen victim to it and some of them even subjected to sever physical and mental torture, it thought it appropriate to seek replies from the UGC, the MCI and the AICTE, the statutory monitoring bodies for different types of educational institutions.