Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 245 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 251 NOMINAL INDEX Prasanna Chakravarthy v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 245 V Perumal v Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 246 H Raja v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 247 N Mahendran v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 Murugan N...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 245 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
NOMINAL INDEX
Prasanna Chakravarthy v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
V Perumal v Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
H Raja v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
N Mahendran v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
Murugan N v Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
Tmt M Nithya v The Head Master and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
Zee Media Corporation Limited v Mahendra Singh Dhoni, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
REPORT
Formulate Rules To Govern Matrimonial Websites: Madras High Court To Centre, State
Case Title: Prasanna Chakravarthy v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
Noting that there are no rules, regulations or even Standard Operating Procedures for online matrimonial websites, the Madras High Court has directed the Central and the State governments to take initiation for formulating rules to govern such website and to provide penal provisions for suppressing material facts.
Justice RMT Teeka Raman also noted that since e-medium is different from a magazine, the particulars given by a prospective person in the matrimonial advertisement need to be verified before registration of the profile. The bench also directed that documents of proof be made compulsory for registration of the profile. It thus directed the State Government to formulate a regulation to ensure that specific information is provided on the websites.
Case Title: V Perumal v Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
The Madras High Court recently lamented that though the framers of the Constitution dreamt of an egalitarian society where people irrespective of their religion, caste, or sex, would be treated equally, some people even today indulge in producing false caste certificates for seeking employment and education, thus depriving opportunity to the deserving.
Justice N Mala noted that it was because of people like this, that Dr. Ambedkar’s dream of achieving a casteless society was still a dream.
Justice Nisha Banu also lamented such fraudulent certificates for public administrations and said that delayed verification and complexity of the best known methods added to the challenge.
Case Title: H Raja v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
While refusing to quash the proceedings against Bharatiya Janata Party's National Secretary H Raja for his derogatory remarks against EV Ramasamy, K Karunanidhi, Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, officers of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and their wives, the Madras High Court observed that Raja had a habit of making such irresponsible and damaging comments.
Justice Anand Venkatesh also observed that when a person in power expresses anguish, he must be careful of every word uttered and must refrain from making reprehensible or scandalous remarks.
Case Title: N Mahendran v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the removal from service of a man who had obtained a compassionate appointment through suppression of facts, observing that he did not deserve any sympathy.
Justice CV Karthikeyan criticised the manner in which the man had obtained a certificate claiming that his family was indigent by suppressing material facts and went on to get employment based on the certificate.
Case Title: Murugan N v Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
The Madras High Court on Thursday disposed of a plea seeking to confer Bharat Ratna posthumously on the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Late M Karunanidhi.
Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice C Kumarappan of the Madurai bench observed that the court could not consider the request as it could not issue a direction to the executive to confer an award to a person.
“Such a direction would be beyond the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution”, the court said.
Case Title: Tmt M Nithya v The Head Master and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
In a pertinent judgment, the Madras High Court has ruled that government servants working in the State are governed by the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules and not the Maternity Benefits Act 1961. The court thus observed that such employees could not seek maternity leave for a third child as a matter of right when the State policy restricts the same.
Justice N Sathish Kumar observed as under,
“...the facts of the present case that the Petitioner is having three biological children. When the state policy and fundamental rules restrict the maternity leave for 3rd child, this Court is of the view, as the matter of right the Petitioner cannot seek maternity leave on the basis of the Maternity Benefit Act. In view of the same, the impugned order has to be sustained.”
The court, looking into the laws and rules, held that the petitioner was governed only by the Fundamental Rules since the Maternity Benefit Act was not applicable to Government servants.
Case Title: Zee Media Corporation Limited v Mahendra Singh Dhoni
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by Zee Media against a single judge's order rejecting its challenge to the interrogatories raised by cricketer MS Dhoni in an ongoing defamation suit between them.
Interrogatories are covered under Section 30 and Order XI, Rules 1 to 11, 21, and 22 of the CPC. They are formal written questions that are administered by the parties to the opposite party with the leave of the Court. The objective is that parties disclose their case and ascertain the truth in a fair manner.
A bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that interrogatories should not be narrowed down to technical limits but should be used liberally, to serve the ends of justice. It remarked.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Madras High Court has once again exercised suo motu revision against an order of the trial court discharging a politician in a criminal case.
This time, former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O.Paneerselvam is facing trouble with the High Court bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh expressing reservations about the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Sivagangai discharging him and his family in a disproportionate asset case. Notably, the discharge order was passed a decade ago, on 03.12.2012.
Justice Anand Venkatesh criticized the manner in which the entire proceedings were conducted and made scathing remarks against the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC). The Court observed that a "well-orchestrated modus operandi" was used in the case, whereby the DVAC, after the change of the government, filed a supplementary chargesheet, wiping out the first chargesheet, under the guise of further investigation and the prosecution withdrew the case citing the second chargesheet which exonerated the accused.
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Making Five Additional Judges Of Madras High Court Permanent
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the names of five additional judges of the Madras High Court as permanent judges.
The judges recommended by the Collegium are:
(i) Shri Justice A A Nakkiran,
(ii) Ms. Justice Nidumolu Mala,
(iii) Shri Justice S Sounthar,
(iv) Shri Justice Sunder Mohan, and
(v) Shri Justice Kabali Kumaresh Babu.