Four days after the violent death of a minor undergraduate student at Jadavpur University who is suspected to have fallen victim to the persisting culture of ragging of freshmen by a section of seniors, the state child rights panel has show-caused the institution for prima-facie “derelictions” and “violations of UGC guidelines and contempt of a Supreme Court judgment”.
Taking cognizance of media reports of the student’s death, the National Human Rights Commission, too, has thrown its hat in the ring and has shot a notice to the Bengal government asking it to submit a report which “should include the reasons for the prima facie failure of the institution to take adequate steps to prevent ragging in accordance with the UGC regulation, and the steps taken or proposed to punish the perpetrators of the ragging including its abettors and sympathizers.”
“The report must also contain the measures being initiated by the State Government for spreading awareness about the menace of ragging amongst the Student Community and Teaching Associations throughout the State,” a communication from the NHRC stated.
Two separate notices were also issued by the NHRC to the university Registrar and the state Director General of Police for immediate action. While the Registrar was directed to submit a detailed report regarding the steps taken for effective implementation of the recommendations of the Raghavan Committee report, affirmed by the Supreme Court of India, to solve the problem of ragging in universities, the DGP was asked for a status report on the criminal case registered against all the responsible students and teaching/ non-teaching staff of the university.
While the state panel provided a 48-hour deadline to the varsity authorities to reply to its show-cause, the national rights body has offered four weeks to the state chief secretary to submit his report.
The state child right’s commission show-cause letter, addressed to the Registrar, Jadavpur University, spells out eight derelictions on part of the authorities which came to the panel’s notice following the visit of the commission’s chairperson Sudeshna Ray and advisor Ananya Chakraborty to the university’s main hostel on Monday, the site of occurrence where the victim jumped from the building’s third floor and perished on August 9, and their conversations with fellow residents of the victim and the hostel superintendent.
The prima-facie anomalies noted by the commission and stated in its letter, signed by its chairperson, were:
- The deceased victim was a fresher but was accommodated with senior boys of the hostel. This is because the pass outs continue to stay back thereby causing a shortage of accommodation
- There is no sign of CCTV cameras in the hostel or the main campus
- No register is maintained for the ingress and/or egress of the students/outsiders
- The superintendent seemed to have no authority to communicate with the students or inspect the rooms available
- The anti-ragging committee seemed non-functional. There were no minutes available
- There is no proper lighting around the building
- Some of the freshers/1st year students were shifted to the New Boys Hostel inside the JU campus the day after the unfortunate incident post haste in a bid to cover up the whole issue
- Some of the students seemed visibly traumatized
The letter also mentions the panel’s takeaways after meeting the hostel superintendent who alleged, “he was not allowed to go upstairs by the boys and that he would be blamed for theft if he went upstairs for anything”.
“The superintendent also reported that inspite of complaining to the Dean and other authorities no step was taken,” the letter goes to on to state and adds: “He reported that he had started maintaining a register of ingress and egress of students/people in the hostel but it was stopped by the boys after a month. He reported that boys also have alcohol, consume weed, cannabis and many other substances in the hostel premises.”
Interestingly, the child rights body also mentioned its members drawing a blank from talking to the freshers who were shifted to the new boys hostel after the victim’s death. “No one divulged any information. It was as if nothing much had happened,” the letter stated.
“The commission therefore calls upon you to answer specifically… with regards to the points above and also answer why actions/proceedings may not be initiated against you for acting in violation of UGC regulations dated 27th June 2019 and in contempt of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in civil appeal no: 887 of 2002 (University of Kerala vs Council, Principals’ Colleges, Kerala and Ors),” the show-cause letter read.
Also, the NHRC is understood to have taken note of media reports which claimed “fellow students of the victim had tried to bring the matter to the notice of the Dean but unfortunately, their efforts went in vain”. It went on to observe: “media report indicates negligence, lack of supervision and inherent failure of the college administration due to which a young student, reportedly undergoing the trauma of ragging, lost life. Therefore, the contents of the media report, if true, amount to a violation of the human rights of the student.”