http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 8

PETITIONER:

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

A PARENT OF A STUDENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE. SIMLA & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/04/1985

BENCH:

BHAGWATI, P.N.

BENCH:

BHAGWATI, P.N.

SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)

MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:

1985 AIR 910 1985 SCR (3) 676

1985 SCC (3) 169 1985 SCALE (1)758

CITATOR INFO :

R 1986 SC 847 (34)

RF 1989 SC1899 (23)

R 1990 SC1251 (11)

R 1990 SC1692 (30)

RF 1991 SC1792 (6)

ACT:

Constitution of India 1950 , Articles 32 and 226 Public

Interest Litigation

Practice & Procedure

Courts-Public Interest litigation-Entertainment of-When

arises

Letter treated as Writ Petition-Disclosure of identity

of petitioner- Necessity of.

Legislation-Initiation of-Giving of directions by

Court-Validity of.

HEADNOTE:

The Chief Justice of the High Court received a letter

from the guardian of a student of the Medical College in

Simla complaining about the ragging of freshers by senior

students within as also outside the college campus and the

hostel. The guardian of the student had annexed along with

the said letter to the Chief Justice , a letter received by

him from his son. The Division Bench of the High Court

presided over by the Chief Justice treated these two letters

as constituting the Memo of Writ Petition , but directed

that these two letters should not be placed on the record of

the proceeding in view of the request made by the guardian

that the identity of the writer should not be disclosed in

the proceedings.

The Division Bench registered the two letters as a Writ

Petition , and issued notice to the State Government, and

the Principal of the Medical College. After bearing the

respondents the Division Bench came to the conclusion that

the practice of ragging was prevalent in the Medical College

on a noticeable scale and that ragging took the form of

subjecting freshers including female students to inhuman and

humiliating treatment degenerating even into physical

violence

677

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 8

and that the college authorities had not been able to

effectively control such ragging. It gave various directions

which included a direction to the State Government to

constitute a Committee-Anti-Ragging Committee-to go into the

question and make recommendations in regard to the curative

, preventive and punitive measures to be adopted by the

college authorities to control and curb the evil of ragging.

Anti-Ragging Committee recommended that the State

Government could initiate legislation which makes ragging a

cognizable offence an l prescribe punishment commensurate

with the crimes committed.

When the matter was taken up again for hearing the

Division Bench directed the State Government to file an

affidavit indicating the action taken on the Report. An

affidavit to the effect that the State Government had ’taken

notice of the recommendations to initiate legislation this

behalf if found necessary and so advised," was filed on

behalf of the State Government. The Division Bench further

directed the State Government to initiate legislation

against ragging and for this purpose granted the State

Government 6 weeks’ time.

In the appeal by the State , to this Court it was

contended that the Court could not give directions to the

State Government to initiate legislation on ragging-

Allowing the Appeal.

^

HELD. t. The Division Bench was clearly in error in

issuing a direction to the Chief Secretary to file an

affidavit within 6 weeks setting out the action taken by the

State Government with a view to implementing the Committee’s

recommendation. [684]

2. The direction given by the Division Bench was really

nothing short of an indirect attempt to