Rahul Pandurangji Khadatkar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 203 Bom

ORDER

V.G. Palshikar, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 26-5-2000, passed by the respondent No. 3 - Principal of Government Polytechnic College, Gadchiroli, in exercise of his powers under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'the Act').

2. The facts, giving rise to the instant petition, stated in briefly, are that : the petitioners, who are senior students of the Government Polytechnic College, Gadchiroli, in violation of the provisions of the Act, violated personal sanctity of one Mr. Ravikumar s/o Baliram Dakhane, respondent No. 4 herein, a 19 years old student of the Polytechnic College, by subjecting him to ragging, which resulted in physical and mental injury to the said student, who and his parents complained of about it to the Police and the Police, after investigation into the matter, have filed Charge-sheet in the Court for prosecuting the present petitioners under the provisions of Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and other related offences. After having noticed the charge-sheet filed against the petitioners, the respondent No. 3 - Principal of the College, issued an order of suspension dated 26-5-2000 under Section 6 of the Act, thereby suspending the petitioners. The petitioners have, therefore, challenged the order of suspension in this Court by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioners seek exercise of this court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in their favour, who, prima facie, appear to have found guilty for having committed criminal offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and involving the moral turpitude. However, taking into consideration the fact that all the petitioners are also the students, Notice, why the petition should not be admitted, was issued to the respondents, and in response to the notice, it has been pointed out, both, by the respondent No. 3 - institution as well as by the aggrieved student that there does exist prima facie case against the petitioners, as will be evident from filing of the Charge-sheet by the police after having carried out investigation into the matter. It was, therefore, submitted, more particularly, by the respondent-State and the respondent - 3/ College that it is the case of ragging and incidence of ragging having been increased, the Government of Maharashtra was required to legislate the Act to effectively control and bring to an end the fashion of subjecting the newly recruited/admitted students to ragging.

4. The evil of ragging cannot be exaggerated the purpose of ragging can never be approved, though we may differ in the origin of ragging, particularly, in educational institutions, imparting education in professional degrees, diplomas or other professional avocations. Usually these courses are of three years and more than that. The courses are very exacting and exciting and requiring serious application of mind and exercise of body. It was, therefore, thought that the student, in the particular course, should live a happy and cohesive life together and, therefore, as a matter of getting themselves introduced to the new entrants, the custom of introducing the old student to new entrants was started and certain obscene questions or obscene actions were required to be undertaken by the fresh entrants to give colour to the entire activity. So, this particular unoccupancy and prima facie laudable purpose of getting introduced themselves to or getting familiar with the senior students, since started, then its nature, colour and effect and what is now popularly known as "ragging" was born. In the early days, this ragging was not since fashion, but in the recent past, serious, "physical violation were committed by the students indulging in ragging, obscene activities were regularly indulged into, causing serious physical and mental injuries to the new entrants. The ragging was so rampant in the past few years that several students are known to have committed suicide preferring death to the torture offered in ragging and many have given up the ideas of taking any professional education.

Alarming of this situation, the State of Maharashtra was required to step in and legislate the Act, as aforesaid, to control the menace of ragging and if possible, permanently end it. That is how, the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999, was born.

5. It is a small enactment. It provides as to what is meant by "ragging". It provides penalty for ragging and arms the Head of the Institution with the power of suspension, pending action of ragging. We have to consider the facts of this case in the light of this happenings of the past.

6. The incident is of dated 13th February, 2000 at 3.00 a.m. respondent No. 4 - Ravi Dakhane, complained that at about 3-00 a.m. that he was tortured physically and mentally by the petitioners. They treated him very inhumanly. They carried him to their residence, asked various obscene questions and whenever, he was unable to answer them, he was beaten by stick. He was confined to their residence in a closed room for about eight hours. The complainant/respondent No. 4, having managed to get out of the confinement of the petitioners, went to his parents and then Police to lodge a complaint, in pursuance of which, the Police, on completion of the investigation into the matter, have prepared Charge-sheet No. 40 and have filed criminal case No. 687/00, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli. It was after registering and filing of the Charge-sheet, which demonstrate existence of prima facie case against the petitioners that respondent No. 3-Principal of Government Polytechnic College, sprang into the action and in exercise of his powers under Section 6(1) of the Act, by the order dated 26-5-2000, has suspended the petitioners from the institution in question. It is this action, which, as aforesaid, is impugned in this petition by the petitioners.

7. On behalf of the petitioners, the order was challenged mainly on the ground that it is outside the scope of Section 6 of the Act and, therefore, it is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed.

8. We may, briefly, note the provisions of the Act, in this regard. Section 2(c) defines what is "ragging". According to that, any disorderly conduct, which causes or is likely to cause physical or psychological harm or even apprehension of such harm to a student in any educational institution. That being the scope and extent of ragging, asking obscene questions and beating with sticks on failure to answer them, would certainly amount to ragging, as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act. Prima facie, filing of the charge sheet against the petitioners in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, proves, that the petitioners have indulged into ragging. The fact that there was prima facie evidence of indulgence in ragging by the petitioners, thus, stands proved. Section 3 prohibits ragging in any form. Section 4 prescribes penalty for ragging. Section 5 provides that any student convicted of an offence under Section 4 of the Act, shall not be admitted to any other institution for a period of five years from the date of order of such dismissal and then Section 5 provides the powers of suspension, pending enquiry. It is this power, which has been exercised by the Institutional Chief/respondent No. 3, while suspending the petitioners. Section 6 of the Act, reads thus :--

"6. Suspension of student. -- (1) Whenever any student or, as the case may be, the parent or guardian, or a teacher of an educational institution complaints, in writing, or ragging to the head of the educational institution, the head of that educational institution shall, without prejudice to the foregoing provisions, within seven days of the receipt of the complaint, enquire into the matter of mentioned in the complaint and if, prima facie it is found true, suspend the student who is accused of the offence, and shall, immediately forward the complaint to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the educational institution is situated, for further action.

(2) Where, on enquiry by the head of the educational institution, it is proved that there is no substance, prima facie in the complaint received under Sub-section (1), he shall intimate the fact, in writing, to the complainant.

(3) The decision of the head of the educational institution that the student has indulged in ragging under Sub-section (1), shall be final".

9. The argument on behalf of the petitioners is that there is no proof of any complaint, in writing, filed with the Educational Institution by the student or his parents, as the case may be, and, therefore, there is no case before the respondent No. 3-Institutional head, to exercise his power under Section 6 of the Act. We are unable to accept this argument for the reason that the provisions of Section 6 of the Act are very clear. It provides that whenever prima facie case of ragging being practiced, is brought to the knowledge of the head of the institution, he shall, without prejudice to foregoing provisions, within seven days of the receipt of the complaint, enquire into the matter and if, it is found true, suspend the student. The provisions of Section 6, therefore, mandate the institutional Chief to suspend the student, who is found prima facie guilty of having practiced ragging. The provision then enjoins him to forward the complaint to the Police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the educational institution is situated, for further action. In the instant case, the matter was already before the Police, on the complaint by the respondent No. 3/College and the Police, after having carried out the investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners and it was after having filed the charge sheet, the action under Section 6 of the Act was taken by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner, which action is impugned in this petition. To get rid of the prohibition of the act, would be unnecessarily circumvent the powers of the institutional head under Section 6. The mandate of legislature is very clear. The head of the institution is empowered to take action of suspension of a student, if prima facie, he is of the opinion, after due enquiry, that ragging has been practiced. Existence of complaint, in writing, with the educational institution, is not mandatory. The purport of the section is that whenever Head of the institution comes to know of practice of ragging in his institution, he shall take action. Whether the complaint is received by him, or whether it is received by the Police is immaterial. What is the mandate by the section is his taking of action of prima facie existence of practice of ragging. That being the true import of the section, in our opinion, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, cannot be accepted, the same failed and the petition is, therefore, dismissed. Before parting with the case, however, we may observe that almost two years have passed since the petitioners/students have been suspended, they may, in the circumstances of this case, approach the institution, and it is the Chief of the institution to reconsider the question of suspension and permit them to prosecute their studies, pending decision of the prosecution, which may, in a given set of circumstances, take five more years.

10. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.