Aman Satya Kachroo Trust v. University Grants Commission & Ors.

15. In December 2021, UGC issued a fresh tender for selection of a non-governmental agency to manage and monitor the Anti-Ragging Programme. The tender process culminated in the award of the contract to C4Y Society. The petitioner was directed to hand over the programme to respondent no.3/C4Y by 01st April 2022. This was challenged by petitioner in W.P.(C) 5438/2022 before this Court.

16. During the pendency of W.P.(C) 5438/2022, UGC issued a fresh tender dated 18th June 2024 for “Selection of an entity for operation of a contact centre to redress the complaints of Ragging & Racial Discrimination received from students of Higher Educational Institutions.” W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 8 of 30

17. The grievance of the petitioner is that the June 2024 tender is substantially an extension of the December 2021 tender, and unless stayed, the challenge in W.P.(C) 5438/2022 would be rendered infructuous.

18. The contention of the petitioner is that the eligibility criteria prescribed therein are arbitrary and discriminatory, specifically designed to exclude the petitioner. The impugned conditions include: (i) a turnover requirement of Rs. 2 crores in the last two years; (ii) limitation of eligibility to private limited/limited companies and PSUs (thereby excluding Trusts); and (iii) disqualification of entities involved in litigation against UGC.

19. It is further contended by the petitioner that the tender undermines the Supreme Court-approved scheme by eliminating the principle of “independent monitoring”. The impugned tender provides for a single entity to manage both the helpline and compliance functions, thereby collapsing the separation of roles that was integral to the original design and which served as a safeguard against conflicts of interest and noncompliance.

20. Petitioner submits that the National Ragging Prevention Programme (NRPP) covers approximately 20 million students across nearly 50,000 colleges in India, and that the impugned tender would compromise the protection of student rights, waste public funds, and dilute the safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court for effective prevention of ragging and racial discrimination in higher educational institutions. Submissions by petitioner

21. At the outset, petitioner submits that the present proceedings arise from a grave and deepening crisis afflicting the Indian education system, W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 9 of 30 cutting across primary, secondary, and higher educational levels. The gravity of the situation is reflected not only in the alarming statistics concerning student suicides and psychological distress, but also in the systemic failures of institutional and regulatory mechanisms meant to safeguard student welfare.

I. Statistical Evidence of Student Distress and Suicides

22. Petitioner has placed on record comprehensive data derived from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the All-India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE), the National Medical Commission (NMC) 2024 survey, and reports of various central institutions, to demonstrate the following disturbing trends: (a) Over 13,000 student suicides annually, surpassing farmer suicides (11,000) in number. (b) A 4% annual increase in student suicides, which is double the national suicide growth rate (2%). (c) 98 suicides across central higher educational institutions between 2019 to 2023, including 11 suicides in IITs in a single year.

(d) In medical colleges, 122 suicides and 1,166 dropouts between 2018 to

2023; further, 31% of surveyed postgraduate students reported suicidal ideation. (e) Between 2019 to 2023, 33,979 dropouts were reported from central institutions, out of which over 16,000 belonged to SC/ST/OBC backgrounds, pointing towards structural discrimination. (f) The NCERT Manodarpan survey of 3.79 lakh school children revealed that 81% reported stress, 34% tearfulness, and 27% loneliness. W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 10 of 30

23. Petitioner submits that these figures reveal a systemic and multilevel crisis. Student suicide, far from being an isolated personal tragedy, signals an alarming structural failure where hundreds of others in the same educational ecosystem suffer comparable distress.

24. While the UGC 2009 Anti-Ragging Regulations had succeeded in reducing ragging from nearly 40% in 2009 to below 5% in 2020, the trend has resurged since 2022. Ragging complaints escalated from 858 in 2022 to 962 in 2023 to 1,084 in 2024, with ragging-related deaths more than doubling post-2022. The Supreme Court has also observed that beyond enforcement of existing guidelines, new measures are required to ensure psychological support to victims, thereby preventing extreme steps such as suicide. II.UGC’s Arbitrary Policy Shift: Nomination to Tender

25. Petitioner states that the resurgence of ragging and the collapse of the National Ragging Prevention Programme (NRPP) can be directly attributed to the UGC’s arbitrary shift from a nomination-based model (earlier mandated by this Court and proven effective) to a tender-based model, which has demonstrably failed.

26. It is submitted that this shift is unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Reliance was placed on Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437, wherein it was held:

15. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by any W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 11 of 30 statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness.”

27. Petitioner contends that UGC falsely represented that this Court had directed the shift to a tender mechanism, whereas no such ruling exists. It is said that the decision disregards the General Financial Rules 2017, which permits nomination for ongoing, successful projects. Similar tendering failures between 2009 to 2012 had already demonstrated the impracticability of such a mechanism. By so acting, UGC has not only violated public interest but also misled this Court, thereby compromising judicial authority itself. W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 12 of 30

28. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of UGC/respondent no.1 to select respondent no. 3/C4Y Society and respondent no.4/SSS Society to manage and monitor the National Ragging Prevention Programme (NRPP) inter alia on the grounds that the process of revaluation of the technical proposals were vitiated by mala fide, C4Y Society is a proxy/cover to facilitate back door entry of respondent no.4/SSS Society, C4Y Society does not have the required experience, expertise, technology, infrastructure and human resources to implement the Programme, nothing is known about respondent no.4/SSS Society (it cannot be traced physically at its address, not on google and not registered with NITI Aayog).

29. It was further submitted that respondent no. 3/C4Y Society had not fulfilled six most important qualifying requirements that concern the Programme, inter alia, (i) Helpline management, (ii) Data management,

(iii) Call centre software, (iv) Over all experience, (v) Human resources and overall software to monitor and manage the Programme and yet it had not been disqualified. Each of these aspects, the petition details out the facts and circumstances to substantiate the petitioner’s contention. Submissions by Respondent no.1/UGC

30. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that from January 2012 till 31st March 2022, petitioner was entrusted with the responsibility of managing the Anti-Ragging Programme as the monitoring committee. However, in compliance with the affidavit filed by the UGC before this Court, a fresh tender was floated in 2021 in accordance with General W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 13 of 30 Financial Rules 2017 and 2019, wherein respondent no. 3/C4Y was declared successful. The selection of respondent no. 3/C4Y was on account of its cost-effective bid, which is consistent with the rationale underlying tender processes, namely, to identify the most suitable vendor at the most competitive cost.

31. It is urged that the petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the fact that respondent no. 3/C4Y, through a highly competitive financial bid, offered an amount nearly Rs. 20,00,000/- lower than that quoted by the petitioner.

32. Petitioner cannot claim any monopoly to run the Anti-Ragging Programme under the garb of the order dated 08th May 2009. The decision to call for fresh tenders is a matter of policy, and cannot be questioned by the petitioner, who, having voluntarily participated in the process, is estopped from challenging the outcome. The tender notice of December 2021 was issued by respondent no.1/UGC strictly in compliance with the affidavit filed in W.P.(C) 2131/2021, which itself was disposed of as infructuous on 26th April 2022, once UGC had satisfied the grievance raised therein.

33. It is contended that it is a settled principle of law that mere participation in a tender process does not vest any right in favour of the participants, and the evaluation by the tender committee is binding unless arbitrariness or mala fides are established. Reliance was placed on Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517, wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held that tender evaluation and award of contracts are W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 14 of 30 commercial functions, and judicial review ought not to be exercised merely to protect private interest. Relevant paragraph is extracted as under: “22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice or decision is “sound”. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold…..” W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 15 of 30

34. Respondents state that petitioner willingly participated in the bidding process and later the petitioner cannot bring baseless grounds for questioning the very procedure of the tender process.

35. Furthermore, it is trite law that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and of the interpretation of its tender documents. The Supreme Court in Silppi Construction Contractors v. Union of India 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1133 has held that Courts must adopt minimal interference in tender matters and accept the interpretation of the tendering authority unless perversity or mala fides are demonstrated. Relevant paragraph is extracted as under: “20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the State instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case.” W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 16 of 30

36. Present tender document under Schedule 7 clearly provides for a transparent marking scheme, wherein technical evaluation carried a weightage of 30% and the price bid carried a weightage of 70%. For ease of reference the said schedule is extracted as under: “Schedule 7 Marking Scheme for Tender Evaluation Tender Evaluation Procedures, Criteria and Marking Scheme

1. Marking Scheme for Tender Evaluation The UGC will use a Marking Scheme to assess the tenders. The weighted technical score will carry a weight of 30% as against a weighting of 70% for weighted price score. The overall passing mark for technical assessment is 50 before applying the 30% weighting for the weighted technical score. A Tenderer failing to obtain the passing mark of 5 for criterion 3 or 4, or the passing mark of 4 for any of criteria 5 to 7, or the overall passing mark, its tender will not be considered further. Upon completion of the technical assessment, the price information will be evaluated. A tender with the highest combined score combining the weighted price score and the weighted technical score will normally be recommended for acceptance.”

37. After technical evaluation, both petitioner and respondent NO. 3/C4Y were found eligible, with petitioner securing 96 marks and respondent no. 3 securing 95 marks. Upon opening of financial bids on 31st January 2022, respondent no. 3/C4Y emerged as the successful bidder with the highest combined weighted score, its financial bid being Rs. 42,00,000/- per annum, was found considerably lower than that of the Petitioner at Rs. 62,92,440/- per annum.

38. Petitioner was fully aware of the evaluation formula and marking scheme, which formed part of the tender document itself. Having willingly W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 17 of 30 participated in the bidding process and having raised no objection at the relevant time, the petitioner cannot now turn around and seek cancellation of the contract merely on account of being unsuccessful.

39. The settled law, as reiterated in Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd. (2016) 15 SCC 272 and State of Punjab v. Mehar Din (2022) 5 SCC 648, mandates judicial restraint in tender matters unless substantial public interest or mala fides are established. In the present case, no such allegation is either proved or substantiated.

40. The entire tender process was conducted online, in a transparent and objective manner, through the e-Uniwizarde Portal. The complaint filed by the petitioner on 01st February 2022 was duly examined by the UGC’s Anti-Ragging Cell, which categorically concluded that the selection process was transparent and without any manual interference.

41. Upon re-evaluation as well, the Technical Evaluation Committee affirmed that respondent no. 3/C4Y possessed the requisite technical competence and that the allegations raised by the Petitioner were wholly unsubstantiated. The successful tenderer has already assumed its duties and has been submitting periodic progress reports without any hindrance in performance.

42. With respect to the contention of consortium participation, it is submitted that Clause 19 of the Tender Document itself expressly permits consortiums subject to a prior declaration of roles and responsibilities, which respondent no. 3/C4Y has duly complied with. Hence, the allegation of a “backdoor entry” of Respondent No. 4 is wholly misconceived. For ease of reference the said clause is extracted as under: W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 18 of 30

43. Respondent further states that awarding the tender to the petitioner, despite another competent entity being willing to execute the same work at a much lower cost, would not only be unreasonable but also contrary to public interest and that the present Petition is, therefore, nothing but an attempt by the petitioner to create roadblocks in the smooth functioning of the Anti-Ragging Programme, which otherwise operates in the larger public interest. Analysis

44. The Court has heard the submissions of the petitioner and respondent no.1/UGC that are already synopsised above. The focus of petitioner’s counsel Ms. Indira Unninayar and of Prof. Rajendra Kachroo, the petitioner himself, who made substantial submissions before the Court, was essentially to underscore the deep concern of the student suicides arising out of ragging incidents, harassment, bullying, discrimination and alienation. Prof. Rajendra Kachroo is an academician and founder of the petitioner/Trust, an NGO, named “Aman Satya Kachroo Trust”.

45. Prof. Rajendra Kachroo did not have to press this aspect beyond a point considering that the Court itself has taken judicial notice of frequent news report of student suicides. In fact, even while the matter was pending W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 19 of 30 before the Court, three more student suicides including at IIT Kharagpur were reported in the news. The reports also mentioned that the support system was not functioning effectively, and possibly, the distressed student did not have any accessible lifeline to turn to.

46. It so happened that about this time, while proceedings were pending before this Court, issues of mental health and student suicides at higher educational institutions was being deliberated and dealt with by the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India 2025 SCC Online SC 631. The deliberations before the Apex Court have been recorded in their successive orders, and the directions eventually issued have a bearing on the disposal of these petitions. This is further elaborated as under:

I. The Supreme Court’s observations and Constitution of the National

47. The Supreme Court in its observation in Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India (supra), underscored the systemic failures of educational institutions to address discrimination, harassment, and mental health concerns, which has led to repeated instances of student suicides. It emphasised the collective responsibility of institutions and society to foster a culture of sensitivity, accountability, and timely intervention. The Supreme Court therefore directed the constitution of the National Task Force. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:

W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 20 of 30 institutional support, they were driven to take the extreme step of ending their own lives. These distressing incidents not only highlight systemic failures but also expose a severe lack of institutional empathy and accountability on the part of educational institutions. When academic environments fail to address discrimination, harassment, and mental health concerns effectively, they contribute to a culture of neglect that can have devastating consequences.

68. As a society, and as stakeholders in shaping the future of our youth, we must take collective responsibility to ensure that no more lives are lost due to apathy or indifference. It is imperative for institutions to have a culture of sensitivity and proactive intervention so that every student feels safe, supported, and empowered to pursue their aspirations without fear or discrimination.

69. The recurring instances of student suicides in Higher Educational Institutions, including private educational institutions, serve as a grim reminder of the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of the existing legal and institutional framework in addressing mental health concerns of students on campuses and to prevent the students from taking the extreme step of committing suicides. These tragedies underscore the urgent need for a more robust, comprehensive, and responsive mechanism to address the various factors which compel certain students to resort to taking their own lives. In light of the concerns expressed above, a National Task Force to address the mental health concerns of students and prevent the commission of suicides in Higher Educational Institutions is being constituted and shall comprise of the following members: i. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, as the Chairperson; ii. Dr. Alok Sarin, Consultant Psychiatrist, Sitaram Bhartia Institute of Science & Research, New Delhi; iii. Prof. Mary E. John (retired), Former Director, Centre for Women's Development Studies, New Delhi; W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 21 of 30 iv. Mr. Arman Ali, Executive Director, National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People; v. Prof. Rajendar Kachroo, Founder, Aman Satya Kachroo Trust; vi. Dr. Aqsa Shaikh, Professor of the Department of Community Medicine in Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, New Delhi; vii. Dr. Seema Mehrotra, Professor of Clinical Psychology, NIMHANS; viii. Prof. Virginius Xaxa, Visiting Professor at the Institute for Human Development (IHD), New Delhi; ix. Dr. Nidhi S. Sabharwal, Associate Professor, Centre for Policy Research in Higher Education, National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi; x. Ms. Aparna Bhat, Senior Advocate (as amicus curiae).

70. The following shall be the ex-officio members of this Task Force: i. Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of India; ii. Secretary, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India; iii. Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India; iv. Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.

71. We direct the Chief Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories to nominate a high ranking officer, not below the rank of Joint Secretary in the Department of Higher Education of the respective State/Union Territory, to act as the nodal officer on behalf of the respective State/Union Territory. We further direct all the concerned departments/authorities of the respective State/Union Territory to cooperate with the nodal officer concerned W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 22 of 30 and furnish necessary information, data and assistance as may be sought by such nodal officer.

72. The Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of India shall act as the convener of the Task Force.

73. The Task Force includes representatives from diverse fields to ensure an interdisciplinary approach to tackling the issue of commission of suicides in Higher Educational Institutions.”

48. The petitioner has also been nominated as a member of the National Task Force presumably in recognition of his ability to contribute empirical data and experiential insights to assist the Supreme Court in this exercise.

49. Furthermore, in Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India (supra), the Supreme Court, guided by the constitutional values of dignity, equality and the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India envisaged the National Task Force not merely as an administrative body, but as an instrument of systemic reform and inclusivity in academic spaces. Its remit extends to identifying the socio-economic, cultural, institutional and psychological factors contributing to student suicides; evaluating the adequacy of current laws, policies and institutional practices; and recommending comprehensive reforms to ensure accountability and create safe, non-discriminatory learning environments.

50. Relevant directions of the Supreme Court outlining the scope, functions and responsibilities of the National Task Force, including its power to conduct inspections, consult stakeholders, engage experts, W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 23 of 30 constitute sub-committees, and submit interim and final reports within a time-bound framework, are extracted as under:

W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 24 of 30 recommendations beyond the specified mandate, wherever necessary, to ensure a holistic and effective approach towards addressing mental-health concerns of students and eliminating the incidence of suicides in Higher Educational Institutions. The Task Force is requested to take into account the views and concerns of all stakeholders, including those of student unions, whether elected or nominated and other student representative bodies, wherever they exist. The Task Force is also requested to seek representation from and consult the governments of all the States and Union Territories. The Task Force may also consider obtaining the views of the different stakeholders by way of circulating a questionnaire and seeking written responses thereupon.

76. It is clarified that the term “Higher Educational Institution” is used broadly to cover all higher educational institutions, including government and private universities, deemed to be universities, government and private colleges, etc.

77. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education; the Secretary, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment; the Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development; and the Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, shall collaborate with the Task Force and extend full cooperation by providing all necessary information, documents, and resources required by the Task Force to effectively carry out its mandate.

78. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of India shall serve as the Member-Secretary of the Task Force. The Ministry of Education, Government of India shall be responsible for providing all necessary logistical support to facilitate the functioning of the Task Force. This shall include making arrangements for travel, accommodation, and secretarial assistance, as well as covering all related W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 25 of 30 expenses of the Task Force members. The Ministry shall provide a sufficiently large office space to the Task Force for holding its meetings and also to enable the officials to carry on its day-to-day activities. Additionally, the Ministry shall provide an appropriate honorarium to the members in recognition of their contributions.

79. We also direct that the Central Government, the Governments of all the States/Union Territories and agencies thereof, and Universities shall extend their full and active cooperation to the Task Force and provide the requisite data, information and assistance, as may be necessary. In the case of delay, reluctance or neglect on part of the aforesaid bodies, the Task Force will be at liberty to approach this Court through the amicus curiae seeking remedial actions.

80. The Chairperson of the Task Force shall be at liberty to engage the services of any person for the purpose of providing secretarial assistance in coordinating with the members of the Task Force, preparation of the interim and final report and for the smooth and effective discharge of any other responsibilities as may arise during the course of carrying out the mandate of the Task Force. This shall include the engagement of the services of Data Analysts and Research Assistants as may be necessary for the effective discharge of the mandate of the Task Force.

81. The Chairperson of the Task Force shall also be at liberty to constitute, after due consultation with the members of the Task Force, committees and subcommittees as may be required for the purpose of carrying out specific functions.

82. We direct the Union of India to deposit an amount of Rupees Twenty Lacs (Rs 20,00,000/-) with the Registry within two weeks from the date of this order as an outlay for the initial operations of the Task Force. The amicus curiae shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application seeking orders for disbursement of any additional funds, whenever necessary. We clarify that this W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 26 of 30 amount is in addition to the financial and administrative responsibility of the Ministry of Education as described aforesaid.

83. The Task Force is requested to present an interim report within four months from the date of this order. The final report shall be submitted preferably within eight months from the date of this order.

84. We treat this matter as part heard. The registry shall notify this matter after four months alongwith the interim report of the Task Force before this very Bench (J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.) after obtaining appropriate orders from Honourable the Chief Justice of India.”

51. At this juncture, having regard to the directions issued by the Supreme Court, this Court does not find it necessary to delve into the larger issues raised by the petitioner concerning the efficacy of existing regulations or recommendation for strengthening protections, as these aspects are already under active consideration in Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). Such issues require a robust institutional process to examine systemic failures in regulatory and administrative mechanisms intended to safeguard student welfare.

52. In terms of the aforesaid directions, the National Task Force, of which the petitioner himself is a member, has been mandated by the Supreme Court to submit an interim report within ‘four months’, and a final report within ‘eight months’ from the date of the judgement, i.e. 24th March

2025. Subsequently in order dated 06th May 2025, the Supreme Court while considering the matter on Office Report, noted with concern that further incidents of student suicides had been reported, including one at IIT W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 27 of 30 Kharagpur and another in Kota. The Court reiterated that “This is one of those unfortunate suicides by a student for which we have constituted the task force to work on the various issues relating to students suicide.” II.Tender Dispute, Role of UGC and Court’s Limited Interference

53. As regards the specific issue of the impugned tender/work order, this Court deems it appropriate to not delve into the said issue, particularly since the current tender is due to be expire on 31st December 2025 and has been in subsistence since 2022. It is reasonably assumed by this Court that the tender process will be reviewed by the agencies responsible for its monitoring, and that the conditions of engagement shall be examined, assessed, and appropriately addressed taking assistance and guidance from the recommendations of the National Task Force.

54. Towards the tail end of proceedings before this Court, Prof. Rajendra Kachroo, highlighted the antagonistic stand of the respondent no.1/UGC in respect of services rendered by the Trust and stated that the Trust had not even been paid the amount due, which had severely constrained the Trust. Despite the services offered by Prof. Rajendra Kachroo having single-handedly crystalized and accelerated the Ant- Ragging Movement, the resistance of respondent no.1/UGC was surprising. It was contended that the larger public interest and the crying need for a robust and effective functional Anti-Ragging Programme seemed to be lost on respondent no.1/UGC, who was merely interested in justifying its tender process without evaluating its efficacy.

55. However, pursuant to Court’s order dated 8th August 2025, counsel for the respondent no.1/UGC handed over to the Court a sanction W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 28 of 30 order dated 20th August 2025 under the signature of the Under Secretary, UGC, confirming the sanction of payment of Rs.12,73,110/- to M/s Aman Satya Kachroo Trust and directions that the sum be paid through e-payment mode to the said Trust.

56. In light of his submissions that the Trust had been managing the Anti-Ragging Programme prior to it being awarded to respondent no.3/C4Y, and that the matter is now being looked into and the issues are being considered by the National Task Force appointed by orders of the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India (supra), Prof. Kachroo made an offer on behalf of the Trust that the petitioner/Trust was willing to undertake monitoring the database of the Anti-Ragging Programme without charging any fees.

57. He sought to reiterate that the respondent no.1/UGC in the past had misquoted and misused the consent which was obtained from this High Court in a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.(C) 2131/2021 vide order dated 26th April 2022, and based on such false and incomplete information, they had used the direction passed by this Court to float the tender and award it to respondent no.3/C4Y.

58. Considering that the order dated 26th April 2022 in W.P.(C) 2131/2021 was never challenged, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the continuing affairs pursuant to the said tender. More so, since counsel for UGC has made a categorical submission that the said work order provided to respondent no.3/C4Y, under the impugned tender, shall expire on 31st December 2025. W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 29 of 30

59. Without going into the merits of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner/Trust and the respondent no.1/UGC in Court and without entering into the controversy, this Court is not inclined to curtail the ongoing work by respondent no.3/C4Y at the tail end of the contract.

60. As stated above, the issues raised by the petitioner/Trust in relation to the ‘ham handed’ and ‘lackadaisical approach’, role of respondent no.1/UGC and that of respondent no.3/C4Y in conducting a dysfunctional Anti-Ragging Programme, as evident from the data showing increased incidents in the past few years of student suicide, the Court is sanguine that these aspects will be highlighted, underscored and asserted by Prof. Rajendra Kachroo as part of the National Task Force set up by the Supreme Court.

61. The Court is also hopeful and optimistic that these aspects, which form part of a larger set of issues and are plaguing the Anti-Ragging Programme, will be considered by the National Task Force. Based on the recommendations of the National Task Force the concerns of the petitioner in relation to the Anti-Ragging Programme which is being conducted by respondent no.1/UGC will also hopefully be addressed and, if necessary, rectified in order to align it with the interest of all the stake holders.

62. The Court has already observed that it is deeply concerned with the issue of student suicides which are becoming more frequent, and that urgent steps need to be taken, as also underscored by the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India (supra) and being monitored by the Supreme Court. To put in place robust, efficient, and effective processes and programmes to address the issue, at the very least, a proper functional W.P.(C) 5438/2022 & W.P.(C) 9263/2024 30 of 30 and effective Anti-Ragging Helpline is certainly an immediate and utmost necessity. This can brook no delay lest we lose more young lives to this scourge.

63. Accordingly, both these petitions stand disposed of. Pending applications are rendered infructuous.

64. Judgement be uploaded on the website of this Court.

(ANISH DAYAL) JUDGE (DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA)

CHIEF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 10, 2025/ak/tk