Order
1. We have heard Mr Gopal Subramanium, the learned Additional Solicitor General. We notice with dismay that notwithstanding the concern shown by this Court in Vishwa Jagriti Mission v. Central Govt. (2001) 6 SCC 577, AIR 2001 SC 2793, practically very little has been done to prevent the menace of ragging in educational institutions. Therefore, a committee headed by Shri R.K Raghvan, Ex-Director, CBI be constituted immediately to make the recommendations as to how the provisions already enacted in several States and statutes to be framed to prevent the menace, can effectively eliminate the menace. Certain names have been suggested to be members of the Committee. They are:
1. the present Director, IIT, Kanpur;
2. the present Principal of Dr. Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi; and
3. the present Principal, Ramjas College, New Delhi.
2. The names suggested are accepted.
3. The Committee shall nominate two suitable persons from Bombay and Chennai to be included in the Committee.
4. Mr Sunil Kumar, Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Human Resource Development shall be the member convenor of the Committee.
5. The main attention of the Committee shall be to focus on the evils of ragging, the modalities how these can be prevented and what stern action can be taken against the persons indulging in ragging. It shall also be suggested as to what action can be taken against the educational institutions where such ragging takes place and the authorities of such institutions. The Committee may be notified immediately and it would be appropriate if a report is submitted within a period of four months from the notification of the Committee. It shall be open to the Committee to appoint such persons, as deemed proper, in respect of various States so that the ground realities of those States can also be brought into focus before the Committee.
6. Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General states that in terms of the previous order dated 20-11-2006, information was sought for from various States as to in how many cases sitting Judges have been appointed as commissions, on the face of the judgment of this Court in T. Fenn Walter v. Union of India (2002) 6 SCC 184. It is stated that unfortunately, none of the States have responded to the queries raised about the number of sitting Judges who have been appointed as commissions, and whether such appointments were made keeping in view the principles laid down in T. Fenn Walter case (2002) 6 SCC 184. The order dated 20-11-2006 was passed before the learned Additional Solicitor General had submitted that notwithstanding the judgment of this Court, in petty and routine matters, sitting Judges are being appointed as commissions. In view of this statement, we direct that in no case a sitting Judge of any High Court shall continue as the Commission. This order shall not, however, operate in cases where the inquiry is at the fag end i.e only where the report is to be submitted.
WP (Crl.) No. 173 of 2006
7. The proceedings before the courts concerned shall not get adjourned because of the pendency of the matter before this Court.
IAs Nos. 2 and 3
8. Response to IAs Nos. 2 and 3 by the Union of India shall be filed within three weeks.
9. List all the matters after six weeks.
Court Masters
Comments