A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 233 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 244 NOMINAL INDEX Abdul Rahman v The Passport Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 233 Er.A.Kanagasabapathy vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 234 B. Saravanan vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 233 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
NOMINAL INDEX
Abdul Rahman v The Passport Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
Er.A.Kanagasabapathy vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
B. Saravanan vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Ramki vs. State [Crl.A.No.72 of 2022], 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
Gnanasekaran Thiyagaraj v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
S Jarin Singh v Union Of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
Athipathi v. The Principal Secretary and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
The President v The District Collector, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
Vellingiri Hill Tribal Protection Society v Union of India and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
PhonePe Private Limited v Digipe Fintech Private Limited, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
ML Ravi v Chairman and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
O Paneerselvam v All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
REPORT
When Birth Certificate Is Produced, Passport Entry Must Conform To It: Madras High Court
Case Title: Abdul Rahman v The Passport Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
The Madras High Court has observed that though a passport is a solemn document, errors may happen and that when the birth certificate has been produced, the passport entry must conform to the birth certificate.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench observed as under:
“It is true that the passport is a solemn document and the applicant must offer correct particulars at the time of application. But some times, errors do happen. The petitioner has enclosed his certificate of birth issued by the competent authority and it is seen therefrom that the petitioner was born on 18.09.1960. When the birth certificate has been produced, the passport entry must conform to the brith certificate.”
Case title - Er.A.Kanagasabapathy vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
The Madras High Court last week dismissed a PIL plea to regulate the entry of Kerala Politicians near the Mullaperiyar Dam (in Kerala's Idukki) and to assure the safety of the Dam.
"Apprehensions of threat to dam are unfounded": a bench comprising Justice SS Sundar and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy said as it noted that the safety of the dam has been ensured by the Supreme Court of India.
Case title - B. Saravanan vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli and others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Granting relief to a State Police officer against whom a 'desertion' order was passed by his department on account of his absence from service (as he had to take care of his wife who was expecting a child), the Madras High Court has emphasised the need for paternity leave legislation in India.
Highlighting the importance of the role of both, a father and a mother during the prenatal care and post-natal care days of a child, the Court observed that because of the challenges of nuclear families, it is high time for the policymakers to "recognise the right to paternity leave/parental leave" to the biological/adoptive parents as the basic human right of the respective prenatal/post natal child.
A bench comprising Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed thus while holding that the right to protection of life guaranteed to every child by Articles 21 and 15(3) of the Constitution of India "culminates" in the fundamental human right of the biological parents/adopting parents seeking maternity/paternity/parental leave.
Case title - Ramki vs. State [Crl.A.No.72 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
Upholding the conviction of a man who sexually assaulted a 4.5-year-old girl, the Madras High Court recently said that "in an era when our President is a woman, we need to hang our heads in shame for such crimes being perpetrated on a daily basis".
"Every girl child is considered as a reincarnation of Goddess and unless this evil of sexual assault is eradicated with strict laws and effective implementation, our society could never grow into a safe and secure society," the bench of Justice R. Hemalatha observed.
In its order, the bench also noted that in a developing country, which is riddled with taboos and biases, when women are emerging out of the shell of ignorance and illiteracy, such incidents only make us feel that "the future of young girls is unsafe".
Case Title: Gnanasekaran Thiyagaraj v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The Madras High Court recently observed that a person arrested in the process of further investigation after the court has already taken cognizance of the offence can file an application for statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC if he has been in custody for more than 90 days and the supplementary charge sheet has not been filed.
The court added that the term “accused if in custody” found under Section 309(2) of CrPC includes only persons who were before the court when it took cognisance of the case and not those accused who were arrested during further investigation.
Case Title: S Jarin Singh v Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court recently observed that a member of the armed forces is expected to have utmost principles of discipline and is expected to follow every command of his superiors without resistance.
“Any member of armed forces is expected to uphold principles of discipline to the utmost. There can never be any resistance shown to the superior or higher officer. The command is a command and should be followed even at the cause of personal suffering,” Justice CV Karthikeyan said.
The court also emphasised that a punishment of compulsory retirement did not attach any stigma and should not prevent a person from applying from a job elsewhere.
Case Title: Athipathi v. The Principal Secretary and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
A refugee has to be housed in reasonably decent accommodation. The basic infrastructural facilities must be available. He or she must also have access to the fundamental amenities such as sanitation, health care, clean drinking water etc., the Madras High Court has held.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that,
"When the right to shelter and housing has been recognised internationally as a human right, it cannot be denied to the refugees living in a camp. A camp houses a few hundred families. There are women and young girls. Their privacy has to be ensured. Otherwise, there is no meaning in declaring privacy as a fundamental right," the court said.
The court added that though the refugees living in camps are allowed to pursue their avocations and earn a living, a lot of restrictions are put in place which hinders their right to work. Thus, the court said that it is time to recognise a refugee's right to work without restriction.
Case Title: The President v The District Collector
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
The Madras High Court has directed the Cuddalore District Collector to remove the Panchayat President and other members of the Nainarkuppam Village for their transphobic letter and resolution against grant of patta land to Transgender persons in the village.
Justice SM Subramaniam also highlighted that the transgender persons have a right to reservation and it is time for the Tamil Nadu government to initiate steps to provide reservation to Transgender persons in the local body to ensure their inclusion in the mainstream society and for their democratic participation. As an initial measure, the court directed the Cuddalore District Collector to ensure that reservation is granted to Transgender persons in the local body.
Case Title: Vellingiri Hill Tribal Protection Society v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court has recently directed the Joint Director of District Town and Country Planning to look into the documents relating to the purchase of land by Sadhguru’s Isha Yoga Foundation in Coimbatore and verify whether necessary permissions were obtained for the construction of the Adiyogi Statue. The court also directed the authorities to take action if the permissions were not in order.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu took note of the status report filed by the Special Government Pleader informing the court that neither no-objection certificates nor permissions were obtained by the Isha Foundation.
Case Title: PhonePe Private Limited v Digipe Fintech Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
In a setback to payments platform PhonePe, the Madras High Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by the company against a single judge order refusing to grant an interim injunction against alleged infringement of its trademark by DigiPe.
The single judge had said that PhonePe had failed to make out a prima facie case and that it had failed to disclose material facts concerning the dismissal of similar applications before other High Courts.
Dismissing the appeals, the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that the appellant PhonePe had taken different stands before different courts on similar issues. The court noted that PhonePe was not the innovator of the” Pe” mark, and though it had claimed to have coined the distinctive “PhonePe” mark, the stand taken before the Delhi High Court was that the mark was coined by “CardPe”.
Case Title: ML Ravi v Chairman and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
The Madras High Court on Friday orally remarked that the plea seeking to revoke the U/A Certificate issued for the Rajnikanth-starrer film "Jailer" was misplaced and bereft of public interest. The court also remarked that the plea appeared to be publicity interest litigation.
Division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu dismissed the plea as withdrawn.
The Petitioner, ML Ravi, an advocate by profession had approached the court claiming that the movie, which had been given a “UA Certificate” by the Central Board of Film Certificate, thus allowing children below 12 years of age to watch the movie with their parent’s guidance, is in fact vulnerable to the youth and children, given the violent actions depicted in the film.
Case Titile: O Paneerselvam v All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by expelled AIADMK leaders seeking a stay on the operation of the General Council resolutions by which they were dismissed from the party.
The appeals were preferred by O. Panneerselvam, P.H. Manoj Pandian, R. Vaithilingam, and J.C.D. Prabhakhar against a single judge order rejecting their application against the party resolution dated July 11 2022 by which they were removed.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that after going through the impugned resolutions, it did not find any prima facie case for a grant of relief as claimed. The court noted that it did not find any reason to interfere with the convening of the General Council or the resolutions by which the appellants were expelled from the party and the ones through which the post of General Secretary was revived.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Suo Motu RC v Additional Superintendent of Police and others
Case No: Suo Motu Crl.R.C.No.1480 and 1481 of 2023
Days after taking up suo moto revision against acquittal of Tamil Nadu Minister K. Ponmudy in a disproportionate assets case, Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court today made critical remarks against the manner in which trial was conducted against State's revenue minister KKSSR Ramachandran and finance minister Thangam Thenarasu in the disproportionate assets case against them.
Calling it another instance where the criminal trial is being derailed by persons who are at the helm of political power, Justice Venkatesh said that if the trend goes unchecked, the Special Courts meant for trial of cases against MPs and MLAs will become a playground for all sorts of condemnable practices handcrafted to subvert the criminal justice system.
On examining trial records, he added that the Special Court at Srivilluputhur seemed to have “acted in tandem" to reduce the administration of criminal justice to a complete farce and that something is "very rotten" in the Special Court.
The Madras Bar Association has passed a resolution raising objection against the renaming of IPC, Indian Evidence Act and CrPC in Hindi. The Association has taken objection to the names "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill", "Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill", "Bharatiya Sakshya Bill", for the Bills which seek to replace the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act respectively.
The Association said that naming the bills in Hindi is "against the provisions of the Constitution" and raised a plea that the English names be retained.
Raising 'Fascist BJP' Slogan Doesn't Constitute Any Offence: Madras High Court
Raising 'Fascist BJP Down' slogan is not an offence, the Madras High Court observed while quashing the FIR lodged against Lois Sofia, arrested for raising slogans against the BJP government on board a flight in the presence of former Tamil Nadu BJP president and current Governor of Telangana and Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry Tamilisai Soundararajan.
Justice P Dhanabal of the Madurai bench noted that Sophia had only raised the slogan as “Fascist BJP” and those words did not constitute any offence and were trivial in nature. Further, the court noted that there was nothing in the chargesheet to attract the offence of public nuisance under Section 290 of IPC.