Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 77 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 84 NOMINAL INDEX The High court of Judicature at Madras v. Thirumalai and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 77 KS Manoj v. Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 78 The Superintendent of Police v. S Rajeshkumar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 79 Saravanan and another v. Semmayee and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 80 SR v. MCR,...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 77 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
NOMINAL INDEX
The High court of Judicature at Madras v. Thirumalai and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
KS Manoj v. Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
The Superintendent of Police v. S Rajeshkumar, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
Saravanan and another v. Semmayee and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
SR v. MCR, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
M/s.Re Sustainability Health Care Solutions Ltd v. The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
K Karthick and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
SKS Builders and Promoters Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
REPORT
Case Title: The High court of Judicature at Madras v. Thirumalai and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
While dismissing a review application filed by the High Court of Madras on its administrative side, the Madras High Court held that the administrative side cannot seek a review of its own judgments on the judicial side as it would amount to undermining the judicial fibre.
Justice PT Asha noted that while an administrative order of the High Court can be subject to scrutiny, the vice versa was not true.
Case Title: KS Manoj v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
The Madras High Court has recently terminated the admission of a 3rd year MBBS Student who had participated in the NEET (UG) 2020 examination and claimed that the OMR Answer sheet uploaded on the official website was not his.
After extensive investigation into the matter, Justice CV Karthikeyan was satisfied that the original OMR Sheet as produced by the respondent agencies was the only one in existence in which the candidate had scored 248 marks out of 720.
Thus, the court found that the writ did not stand and the interim permission that was granted by the single judge, allowing the candidate to participate in the admission process would have to be interfered with.
Conviction As Juvenile Does Not Stigmatize Future Employment As Police Constable: Madras High Court
Case Title: The Superintendent of Police v. S Rajeshkumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
The Madras High Court has noted that rejecting a candidate’s appointment for the sole reason that he was acquitted/convicted as a minor would go against the objectives of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumarakurup came to the aid of a candidate who had applied for the post of Police Constable. His candidature was rejected when the authorities came to know that he was involved in a criminal offence. Hence, even though he got selected in the written test and the physical test, his name was rejected.
It noted that when a special enactment had sought to remove the stigma, the police should not be acting against the provisions of the Act and claim that the rejection was based on the Service Rules.
Hindu Succession Act Will Not Come In Way Of Inheritance By Tribal Women: Madras High Court
Case Title: Saravanan and another v. Semmayee and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
The Madras High Court has recently come to the support of tribal women in their struggle for equal succession rights. The court has noted that the Hindu Succession Law does not to exclude tribal women from its operation but only intends to positively include the customs.
Clause (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act states that the Act shall not apply to the members of the Scheduled Tribe unless the Central Government by notification in the official gazette otherwise directs.
Justice SM Subramaniam highlighted that the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act should not come in the way of inheritance by tribal women in areas where Hinduism and Buddhism were being followed.
Case Title: SR v. MCR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of the Family Court directing the wife to pay twenty thousand rupees as interim maintenance to her husband during the pendency of their divorce petition.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi noted that the Family Court judge had "magnified" a small procedure and had misplaced sympathy. The family judge had noted that the husband had undergone angioplasty and had a stent fixed which made him incapable to work.
Case Title: M/s.Re Sustainability Health Care Solutions Ltd v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
The Madras High Court has recently issued a set of directions for the movement of bio medical waste. The court was hearing a plea filed by a company which was engaged in the business of collecting and disposing bio medical waste in five districts namely Madurai, Virudhunagar, Theni, Dindigul and Ramanathapuram.
The company had approached the court when a group of villagers restricted entry of the company vehicles after a plastic pocket containing amputated limb had fallen on the road in transit. Following this, a peace committee meeting was convened including revenue and police authorities. The company was directed to take a different route and its license was to be renewed only after ascertaining views of villagers.
Justice GR Swaminathan, however criticised the manner in which the villagers had restricted the company. The court noted that the right to carry on business was guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the constitution and the mob could not hold a person at ransom.
Madras High Court Quashes Temple Archaka Appointments Made Contrary To Agama
Case Title: K Karthick and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) recently set aside the appointment of three persons as the Archakas at the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil, Trichy, after noting that the appointments were not in terms of the Agama.
The Court noted that the temple was an agamic temple and was governed by Kamika Agama. Therefore, only Adi Saivars/Sivachariyars/Gurukkals who have gained knowledge in the Agamas alone are eligible and qualified to be appointed as Archakas for the said temple. However, the persons appointed do not belong to the denomination of Adi Saivars/Sivachariyars/Gurukkals. "Therefore they are ineligible to be appointed as Archakas in Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil, Kumaravayalur, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy which is governed by Kamika Agama", the Court held.
The Court also explained that the Agamic prescription is not a violation of Article 17 of the Constitution by pointing out that a Smartha Brahmin is not eligible to be appointed as an Archaka of the temple. The Agama is not unconstitutional as there is no disqualification on the sole ground that a person belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Personal Hearing To Be Granted In All Matters Prior To Finalisation Of Assessment: Madras High Court
Case Title: SKS Builders and Promoters Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
The Madras High Court has held that personal hearings shall be granted in all matters prior to the finalization of assessments, except where the stand of the assessee is intended to be accepted by the department.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the officer has grossly erred in proceeding to finalize the assessment in violation of the principles of natural justice.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Zee Media Moves Madras High Court Challenging Interrogatories Raised By MS Dhoni In Defamation Suit
Zee Media has approached the Madras High Court challenging the order of a single judge allowing Interrogatories raised by MS Dhoni in a defamation suit. Interrogatories are written questions asked by one party to a suit, to which the other party has to give written answers under oath.
Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq adjourned the case to March 13th and refused to pass any interim orders in the matter.