The NLSIU Bangalore Anti Ragging Squad Committee has upheld a complaint made about ‘major misconduct’ of ragging in 2017-18 by a senior student against a junior student of the law school.
The registrar accepted the committee’s finding and procedure as “in accordance with the rules” and affirmed a one-trimester suspension from classes and academic privileges, and a one-trimester expulsion from hostels.
Repeated misconduct “may end up in removal” from NLS, the order warned the senior student.
One issue with the registrar’s order, however, is that in the post-script it states that the “vice-chancellor is the appellate authority”, which prima facie seems to go against the mandatory UGC regulations that require the chancellor as the appellate authority, stipulating:
“9. Administrative action in the event of ragging:
9.1. c) An appeal against the order of punishment by the Anti-Ragging Committee shall lie,
i. in case of an order of an institution, affiliated to or constituent part, of a University, to the Vice-Chancellor of the University;
ii. in case of an order of a University, to its Chancellor.”
We have reached out to vice-chancellor Prof Venkata Rao for comment.
We understand that the university is currently considering the applicable legal provisions.
In 2018, an anonymous blog raised the point that ragging still persisted at institutions such as NLS under the guise of “positive interaction”.
The continuing existence of ragging is, of course, not just a phenomenon at NLS or national law schools (though a residential campus can no doubt exacerbate ragging issues).
In 2017, NLIU had banned 6 ragging suspects from hostels and NLU Jodhpur had suspended three students for one year for ragging.
Comments
you need to mind your business.
Further, the bully has unabashedly sought for a stay from the VC. Neither is the VC the appellate authority, nor is there any power of granting stay granted to any authority under the UGC Regulations. Only hoping that good sense prevails and the law faculty read the law.
There also has been radio silence from the bully's batch. No condemnation, no support from the victim. Possibly because of friends in high places.
Yes, there should be personal responsibility, even if you are only 20-something years old or so, but to some extent there is also the hope that raggers can reform and learn from their mistake (as this order seems to also suggest, by not outright expelling the student permanently). Happy to take feedback though. Like I said, it's a grey area.
1. Harm his reputation
2. Pressurise the NLSIU admin to uphold the ARS recommendations.
Please remember that the ARS is only the first investigative body. The appellate authority is supposed to apply his mind to the facts of the case and form an independent opinion. This campaign by the associates of the so-called victim is very transparent in it's attempt to browbeat the process. Even the ARS' findings are suspect. It was probably afraid of the prevailing environment on campus with the recent suicide and general discontentment. So they did the safe thing by saving themselves so if this becomes a problem later then can wash their hands off the whole thing.
In my experience with the alleged offender - yes he is slightly rough around the edges. But I can't imagine him indulging in actual ragging that merits such grave punishment. Maybe a warning or a monetary fine should have been imposed instead of this. I am also glad that he's still allowed to attend classes in the interim, because otherwise irreparable harm would be caused to him in the event that the appeal is ruled in his favour by the VC.
Oh and it's hilarious that some comments here are saying that the alleged perpetrator is influential. What a joke. He might have been a popular guy in college, but his family background is solid middle-class. The so-called victim on the other hand is extremely well connected in [...] and his relatives including current state ministers. [...]
@Kian, please be careful in the future. The mere fact that nearly identical reporting from B&B and LI appeared within hours of each other clearly shows that the entire case made out here is the version of one source alone (ie the alleged victim's). That is not unethical journalism per se, but do take precautions so that you don't end up being a vehicle for someone's agenda.
PS: @Kian, please don't censor this post. I have sufficiently anonymised it, and in any case, many posts attacking the alleged perpetrator have been allowed so it's only fair that the other side is also heard.
1. The offender has only two months left at the university. That's actually all the more reason to expedite proceedings and bring matters into light, not less. Everyone knows that after he graduates, he won't give a rat's ass as to what steps university authorities may or may not take.
2. Appeal to the VC. That itself is suspect, since it is the Chancellor who is the appellate authority, not the VC. Especially in the light of the fact that the VC has been known to use his discretionary power to make special provisions for students he deems worthy. Also, it's 'appeal' and not first instance. Unless the recommendations are reversed, they still hold and people have a right to know that about the offender. Going by your logic, until SC has finished dealing with a matter, it should not be highlighted at all.
3. Pressurise the admin to uphold recommendations. Why should the admin have to be pressurised at all? It is supposed to uphold those recos in the absence of mala fide allegations against the committee or evidence unearthed to the contrary. That's what the process requires. The very fact that you are saying this means admin will not uphold recommendations normally, which is all the more reason why this matter should be brought into light instead of shoved under the carpet.
4. Your entire second and third paragraphs constitute a classic attempt at misdirection, questioning due process the moment it goes against you or the one you so obviously seem to be supporting, using personal and anecdotal experience to disbelieve that someone you know could possibly have committed a wrong (almost everyone close to SH offenders, rapists and other criminals swear to similar things). What you have is your opinion, that too anonymous, which is of less than zero significance when compared to the recommendations of an officially appointed committee. Where are you getting the locus from to suggest ARC's motivations or objective, which seems more like your own fertile imagination?
5. Popular guy, solid middle class background, victim-blaming. Self-explanatory as to which way your sympathies lie, which goes to debunk almost every point you supposedly made to uphold justice and fairness.
1. That he has only 2 months left: there has to be a test against the balance of convenience. You're right, if he graduates before the appeal is dealt with, then the punishment won't mean anything. Equally, if you do prevent him from attending class now, only for him to be vindicated by the appellate authority, then you'd have given him a constructive year-loss despite his eventual acquittal. This is a template case of "irreparable harm" that is mitigated by allowing him to attend while the appeal is pending.
2. SC and HCs very often stay the operation of trial court orders while an appeal is pending. It's settled procedural law. This alleged perpetrator can very well be extended that benefit. As for VC's appellate authority, we have never followed all UGC guidelines to the letter, only in spirit. So it's perfectly alright for the VC to rule on this appeal. If the complainant feels aggrieved, he is free to approach the courts. After all, given the resources and clout at his disposal, it wouldn't even be much of a stretch for him.
3. I didn't say "pressurise to rule on the appeal". Yes, admin should rule on it ASAP. I said "pressurise to uphold the ARS finding". Media harassment can obstruct the operation of the process at this stage. Coercive pressures to uphold, when it is not impossible that the appellate authority might very well overturn the finding otherwise, can lead to a miscarriage of justice causing irreparable harm to the alleged perpetrator. I'm not saying that the NLSIU admin will be cowered down, but just that this looks like a very transparent attempt at forcing it. And yes, normally a case (with the blatant flaws on merits) such as this would not be upheld by any appellate authority. The very avenue of appellate remedy is to correct potentially erroneous findings at the first instance.
4. Of course, it is my personal opinion that I feel that the ARS came to a faulty conclusion. It's also my opinion that it's possible that this outcome was motivated by external factors like student discontentment, the recent suicide etc. Any independent review of the facts of this case, outside the testy crucible of fear that NLS is right now, would not have gone this far in punishing this alleged perpetrator for what is said to have done.
5. I made no attempt to hide the fact of where my sympathies lie in this case. Virtually an entire batch of students are together is calling out this witch-hunt. But let me clarify, the alleged perpetrator is not my friend. In fact, I find him quite distasteful, and he surely deserves censure for bullying. I'm just saying that, being privy to the facts of this case, the ARS recommendations seem excessive and self-serving.
Let us also not forget that SBA elections are almost upon us, and that (junior batches') candidates in the fray have a lot to gain politically by vilifying an outgoing batch and scapegoating an easy target - one who has no influential family connections, as opposed to this so-called victim.
2. If VC is sitting on appeal, let him. Your opinion about stay is not accurate, it is not granted as a matter of course. In the cases it is actually stayed, the punishment can actually be given effect even later. Here it cannot. I repeat, till the appeal decides otherwise, he has been held guilty. Since you are equating the process with a judicial one, you should know that trial court has the power to send a criminal to prison after convicting him. It doesn't have to be till all the appeals been exhausted, especially since it's very clear that the matter would become redundant after two months. As for suffering irreparable harm, there is a very simple solution that the student could have opted for. Not ragging others. His career concerns are his, not anyone else's. People should think twice before ragging juniors and strong messages need to be sent instead of hushing things up or delaying them forever. As for your suggestion to the victim approaching the court, one can just as well say that let recommendations be implemented and the offender should go to the court to stay them. Nothing is stopping him either, right?
In this case it seems that NLS has provided the victim/complainant with "sufficient" recourse.
Shaming only breeds shaming and this is dangerous as it seems to provide fertile ground for harbouring extreme views and breeds toxicity and mistrust, another battle that NLS seems to be fighting at the moment.