In Tamil Nadu, the mention of the term ragging will immediately ignite the memories of the horrifying murder of Pon Navarasu, the first year medico from Annamalai University, Chidambaram, in 1996. Navarasu, the son of Madras University Vice Chancellor P.K. Ponnusamy, had gone missing on November 6, 1996, from his hostel room in Chennai.
Later the police investigation found that the body of Navarasu was butchered and the parts were strewn in different parts of the state. The police zeroed in on Navarasu’s senior John David.
Also read
- Vijay TVK conference: Why 'Thalapathy' remembered Congress MLA Anjalai Ammal along with Velu Nachiyar, Periyar at Vikravandi? 5 POINTS
- Vijay TVK conference: Who is Velu Nachiyar, Tamil Queen mentioned by 'Thalapathy' at Vikravandi alongside Ambedkar?
- Vijay's TVK conference: Response to 'koothadi' slur to naming rivals: 5 best 'Thalapathy' quotes at Vikravandi
Following this, on March 11, 1998, a trial judge Justice S.R. Singaravelu, in Cuddalore, convicted John David sentencing him to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment on charges of murder, abduction, illegal confinement and destruction of evidence. Delivering the final verdict, the trial judge said personal indignation was the motive of the murder.
Navarasu’s murder led the path to regulation against ragging. The anti-ragging legislation was passed in 1997 by the then Tamil Nadu government. After all the investigation, arrest and anti-ragging legislation, in 2001, the Madras High Court acquitted John David. However, after a decade the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and said that the view of the High Court was “erroneous.” Subsequently, David who was working in a BPO in Chennai surrendered and was imprisoned.
And 17 years after incarceration now, the Madras High Court had granted interim bail to John David. The court had quashed a government order rejecting his application for premature release. Passing orders on the petition filed by John David’s mother Esther, a division bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam, directed the state government to reconsider his application for premature release.
John David’s advocate S. Manoharan, argued in the Madras High Court that there are valid grounds for the state government to reject the premature release petition. It was argued that the government has formulated a scheme under the 2023 GO (430) for premature release and David has fulfilled the eligibility requirements.