duty of the head of the institution to register the F.I.R. with police within 24 hours. In 2013, a police case was registered against the director, dean and registrar of a reputed college in Delhi for, among other charges, not informing the police and registering F.I.R. within 24 hours of receiving the ragging complaint. (failing to inform a public authority, IPC 176). The database of the Anti-Ragging Helpline indicates that it has been to an extent successful in ensuring a safer environment in colleges from where it registered the complaints. In many cases, it forwarded the complaint to the University Grants Commission (UGC) for an action against those colleges which refused to take any action against the culprits. Controversy A major concern that was highlighted against the helpline was that it registered a minuscule percentage (0.1%) of the total phone calls it received. Specifically, the toll-free helpline (1800-180-5522) received calls in the three months of November 2012 to January 2013, but only 190 complaints were registered in this period. In its defence, the helpline said that most of the calls it received were of inquiry in nature, of the eager students to know whether the helpline number worked or not. Some students changed their minds midway not to register the complaint. It also said that many of the calls were hoaxes as it was a toll-free number. Legislation In 1997, the state of Tamil Nadu first passed laws related to ragging. Subsequently, a major boost to anti-ragging efforts was given by a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India in May 2001, in response to a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Vishwa Jagriti Mission. Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 In 1999, the Government of Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 to prohibit ragging which it defines as the:Display of disorderly conduct, doing of any act which causes or is likely to cause physical or psychological harm or raise apprehension or fear or shame or embarrassment to a student in any educational institution and includes— (i) teasing, abusing, threatening or playing practical jokes on, or causing hurt to, such student ; or (ii) asking a student to do any act or perform something which such student will not, in the ordinary course, willingly, do. The objective of the act is to create a framework to establish ragging as a criminal act, and lay out possible