A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 407 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 415 NOMINAL INDEX ABC v. XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 407 Mahalingam Balaji v. The Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 408 The Assistant Director v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 409 K Jayakumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 407 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 415
NOMINAL INDEX
ABC v. XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
Mahalingam Balaji v. The Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
The Assistant Director v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
K Jayakumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 410
DMK ICF Labour Union v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
Suo Motu v The Deputy Superintendent and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
S Kalavathi v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
R v B, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
M.Palanisamy v The Director of Town Panchayats, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 415
REPORT
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
The Madras High Court recently held that when a wife disputes the issuance of talaq by the Muslim husband, it is upon the husband to obtain a judicial declaration that marriage was validly dissolved.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that Talaq under Muslim personal laws involved a certain procedure which had to be strictly complied. The court thus observed that if the husband claimed to have given talaq to the wife, and the same was disputed by the wife, the only appropriate and legally permissible course would be for the husband to obtain a judicial declaration that marriage is validly dissolved.
Case Title: Mahalingam Balaji v. The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
The Madras High Court recently refrained from passing any orders on a plea questioning the Aryan-Dravidian race theory taught in educational institutions.
The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy remarked that the court was not an expert in the history of origin of race and thus could not grant the relief as requested for. The court thus observed that it was for the experts to determine whether the claims made by the petitioner on the two race theory was valid or not.
Case Title: The Assistant Director v The State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
The Madras High Court recently held that once a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was registered, the Enforcement Directorate was within its right to challenge the closure report filed in the Predicate Offence if the same resulted in miscarriage of justice.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam reiterated that the PMLA was a standalone offence and that when a closure report was filed in the predicate offence, it would not automatically close the PMLA proceedings also. The court thus quashed a closure report filed by the State police and taken on file by the Magistrate in connection with a cases involving lottery baron Santiago Martin and his wife.
Case Title: K Jayakumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 410
The Madras High Court recently directed the State Government and the Director General of Police to ensure that those having a diploma certificate in Siddha Medicine are not practicing Siddha Medicine. The court added that such a situation would create havoc in the society which was already dealing with several cases of quacks.
Justice B Pugalendhi was hearing a petition filed by K Jayakumar, claiming to be a doctor practicing Siddha Medicine seeking directions to the police not to harass him or interfere with him running the Siddha clinic.
Secret Ballot Mandatory For Union Recognition In Railway Production Units; Madras HC Sets Precedent
Case Title: DMK ICF Labour Union v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice C. Kumarappan directed the Integral Coach Factory (ICF) to implement a Secret Ballot System for trade union recognition, replacing the existing Staff Council model. The Court found that the current system, which splits representation equally between management-nominated officials and worker-elected representatives, impedes effective worker representation and violates Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. The Court mandated that the Railway Board establish procedures for secret ballot elections within three months, ensuring democratic union representation in the Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM).
Case Title: Suo Motu v The Deputy Superintendent and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
The Madras High Court has set aside the discharge of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O Panneerselavm in a disproportionate assets case in 2012.
While setting aside the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai permitting the prosecution to withdraw the case, Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the order of special judge smacked of gross impropriety and abuse of judicial power.
The court noted that a modus operandi was followed the present case, similar to that followed in other cases involving the Ministers. The court noted that once Panneerselavm was back to the political saddle as the Finance Minister, he lost no time in setting the entire investigation machinery as well as the high constitutional functionaries like the Advocate General and the Public Prosecutor to find out ways and means to diffuse and self-destruct the prosecution case.
Case Title: S Kalavathi v State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
The Madras High Court recently observed that the prisoners were not slaves and could not be treated in inhuman ways to punish them for their crimes. The court added that torturing inmates would only propagate crimes and not mitigate them.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam made the observations in a plea by a prisoner's mother alleging that he was being treated inhumanly by the prison authorities and was even made to do household work of the officers.
The court also observed that the power given to the jail authorities must be exercised with care and caution as abuse of power would create havoc and undermine the ethos of criminal justice system. The court emphasised that nobody could unduly exrcise power over another and such misuse of power had to be dealt with seriously.
Case Title: R v B
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
The Madras High Court has observed that the fundamental right of privacy includes spousal privacy. The court noted that the law could not permit or encourage snooping by one spouse on another. The court thus observed that the evidence that was obtained by invading the privacy of the partner was inadmissible in the court.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus came to the rescue of a wife against the order of the Paramakudi Subordinate Court refusing to reject the call records of the wife that was submitted by the Husband during the trial of a marital dispute. The court noted that the husband had stealthily obtained the information pertaining to the call history of his wife and thus had breached the wife's privacy.
Courts Can't Direct Promotions Outside Established Rules And Seniority Framework: Madras HC
Case Title: M.Palanisamy v The Director of Town Panchayats
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 415
The Court held that a Water Pump Operator's promotion to Sanitary Supervisor and subsequent reversion must be evaluated within the framework of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat Establishment Rules. Since the position of Water Pump Operator (that the petitioner undertakes) is not among the designated feeder posts (Public Health Workers, Sanitary Workers, or Scavengers) for promotion to Sanitary Maistry, the petitioner's initial promotion was irregular and the reversion was legally justified.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Dr M Sathya Kumar v Government of Tamil Nadu and Another
Case No: WP 32146 of 2024
The Madras High Court has issued notice to the State Government on a plea seeking a direction to Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udayanidhi Stalin to adhere to the dress code for government servants in the state.
When the matter was taken up on Tuesday, the bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji asked the AG to find out if there were any dress code prescribed for constitutional authorities in the state of Tamil Nadu. The court then adjourned the case by a week.
The notice has been issued on a plea filed by Advocate Sathya Kumar. In his plea Kumar says that Udayanidhi Stalin, who is the Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development in the State and who has been recently appointed as the Deputy Chief Minister of the State, is seen wearing a casual T-Shirt in all Government programmes, in the ministerial office and in Deputy Chief Minister's Cabin "as against the dress code prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Office Manual".