Kerala High Court Concludes Appeals in Student Ragging Death Case Following University's Expulsion of 19 Students

Ernakulam, Kerala – The High Court of Kerala, in a significant development, has disposed of a series of writ appeals filed by Sheeba M.R. , the mother of Sidharthan J.S. , a student who tragically died following an alleged ragging incident at the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences , Pookode. The Division Bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Rawal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. V. Jayakumar , concluded the proceedings on May 28, 2025, after being informed of the University's action to expel 19 students implicated in the incident.

The appeals (WA Nos.268/2025 and connected cases) challenged a Single Bench judgment dated December 5, 2024. The mother had sought intervention, leading to the High Court closely monitoring the subsequent disciplinary inquiry conducted by the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University.

Background of the Appeals and Court's Intervention

The case revolved around the unfortunate death of Sidharthan J.S. , allegedly due to ragging. His mother, Sheeba M.R. , approached the High Court challenging the Single Bench's earlier directions concerning the inquiry into her son's death and the status of the students accused of ragging.

In an interim order dated March 4, 2025, the Division Bench had granted leave to appeal and notably "interdicted the directions of the Single Bench to the extent of granting the admissions to the students who were found to be indulged into ragging." The Court also directed the University to expedite its enquiry, initially suggesting completion by the end of March 2025.

Clarification on Witness Cross-Examination

A crucial aspect of the proceedings involved the procedure for the University's inquiry. The Single Bench had directed that while a fresh enquiry be conducted with charge memos and gists of witness statements provided to the accused students, "the statements of the witnesses need not be recorded afresh... without revealing the identity of the witnesses."

In its March 4, 2025 order, the Division Bench inadvertently mentioned that an "opportunity of hearing has to be given to the students with liberty to cross examine the witnesses." This was subsequently corrected by the Court on March 18, 2025. The Court acknowledged the inadvertence, stating:

"We are of the view that, once this Court while granting the interim order, had kept the direction No.2(i)... of the Single Bench in tact, there was no question of granting the permission to cross-examination, particularly when the identity of the witnesses had already been ordered by the Single Bench to be kept secret."

The Court, therefore, expunged its remarks regarding permission for cross-examination, reinforcing the Single Bench's directive to protect witness anonymity while ensuring procedural fairness by providing a gist of statements to the accused. The students were also barred from entering college premises and offered options for virtual hearing.

University Takes Action: 19 Students Expelled

Pursuant to the High Court's directives and the expedited inquiry, the Anti-Ragging Committee of the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences submitted its report. Based on this report, the college issued an order on March 31, 2025 (marked as Ext.X1 before the Court).

The judgment records:

"...the competent authority ie., the anti-ragging committee on the basis of the report expelled all the (19) students from the institution and debarred from admission to any other institutions for a period of three years. They have been found to be indulging into abetment of committing ragging, conspiracy, unlawful assembly, violation of decency and morals through ragging, denial of medical help during ragging, physical and psychological humiliation through ragging, wrongful confinement during ragging."

Appeals Disposed Of

With the University having taken definitive action against the students found guilty by its Anti-Ragging Committee, the High Court found no further orders were necessary in the writ appeals.

The Bench concluded:

"In this view of the matter, no further orders are required. Writ appeals stand disposed of."

This judgment marks the culmination of the High Court's oversight in this sensitive ragging case, emphasizing the importance of timely and fair disciplinary proceedings by educational institutions while also upholding procedural safeguards like witness protection in appropriate circumstances.