Madras High Court: Two Division Benches At Madurai Dispose Of Over 8.6K Cases In 3 Months
story
The Madurai bench of Madras High Court has set a new benchmark by disposing of more than 8,000 cases in just a span of three months, as reported by the Ministry of Law and Justice.Two division benches - one of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad and the other of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Nisha Banu, later with Justice MS Ramesh together disposed of 8,612 cases...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Madurai bench of Madras High Court has set a new benchmark by disposing of more than 8,000 cases in just a span of three months, as reported by the Ministry of Law and Justice.
Two division benches - one of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad and the other of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Nisha Banu, later with Justice MS Ramesh together disposed of 8,612 cases between September 5 and December 2 this year.
Of this, the bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad disposed of 6,512 cases including 3,737 miscellaneous cases, 2,506 writ petitions, 218 writ appeals, 28 contempt petitions, 7 civil miscellaneous appeals, 5 habeas corpus petitions, 3 civil revision petitions, 3 review writ applications, 2 suits filed in appeal, 2 contempt appeals, and one second appeal.
During this time, the bench went on to pass some landmark orders such as directing schools to frame anti sexual harassment policy, prohibiting the use of mobile phones inside temples, making tourist destinations accessible for the differently abled and so on.
The second division bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Nisha Banu which was later presided by Justice Venkatesh and Justice MS Ramesh disposed of 2,100 cases including 1,261 cases listed under the main category and 839 cases under the miscellaneous category.
During this time, the court, observing the high number of habeas corpus petitions, warned the state government that detention of individuals when found to be frivolous, the state would have to pay compensation. The court also passed orders directing the state to provide counseling for young detenues.