Ragging is corrosive assertion of power, says Madurai High Court Bench

Ragging is not youthful exuberance gone astray. It is a corrosive assertion of power. When authority intervenes to prevent it, the law must ensure that such intervention is not met with silence, threat or retaliation, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has said.

Justice L. Victoria Gowri made the observation while directing the Tirunelveli Commissioner of Police to nominate a competent police officer to conduct the further investigation into the complaint lodged by an Assistant Professor, Department of Nephrology, Tirunelveli Medical College.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Kannan Baba. The Assistant Professor had lodged a complaint stating that some senior students of the college had damaged his car after disciplinary action was taken against them in connection with a ragging incident.

He was also the senior warden of the men’s hostel. He was entrusted with the responsibility of monitoring ragging activities. Based on his complaint, Tirunelveli police had registered a case. However, the investigation ultimately culminated in a closure report as undetected.

Aggrieved by this, he filed a petition before Judicial Magistrate I, Tirunelveli, seeking further investigation. The petition was dismissed. Challenging the same, the Criminal Revision Case was filed.

The court said the power to direct further investigation is not an ornamental power. It is intended to ensure that the truth is not sacrificed at the altar of an incomplete investigation.

The court said it finds that the facts of the case required a more careful judicial consideration before accepting the closure report as undetected.

The background of ragging, the disciplinary action taken by the college administration, the petitioner’s role as senior warden, the alleged throwing of a paver block from a hostel terrace at midnight on the windshield of a car and the possible motive angle are circumstances which warranted further investigation, the court said.

The Judicial Magistrate ought not to have dismissed the protest petition in a mechanical manner, the court said. The court set aside the order and directed further investigation.