CRIMINAL LAW Madras High Court Quashes Conditions Imposed By Police Against Oratory Competition On Prabhakaran's Birth Anniversary, Permits Speeches Eulogising LTTE Leader Case Title: Pugazendhi Thangaraj v. Inspector of Police Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 18 The Madras High Court has allowed a petition filed by director Pugazendhi Thangaraj and relaxed the conditions...
CRIMINAL LAW
Madras High Court Quashes Conditions Imposed By Police Against Oratory Competition On Prabhakaran's Birth Anniversary, Permits Speeches Eulogising LTTE Leader
Case Title: Pugazendhi Thangaraj v. Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Madras High Court has allowed a petition filed by director Pugazendhi Thangaraj and relaxed the conditions imposed on celebrating the birth anniversary of late LTTE Leader Prabhakaran.
Though the court relaxed the conditions imposed by the police, Justice G Chandrasekharan stressed that the event should not affect the sovereignty of the nation or its friendly relations with other nations.
Case Title: Rajeshwari v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
The Madras High Court has recently set aside the life imprisonment imposed on a mother for setting her minor daughter on fire and thereby causing her death.
Altering the charge from that under Section 302 to one under Section 304 of IPC, Justice PN Prakash (since retired) and Justice G Jayachandran noted that the primary question was whether the appellant mother had intended to commit the murder of her daughter.
Case Title: Jeya Sudha v. Inspector of Police and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
While noting that there are only seven Special Courts to deal with NDPS cases at present, the Madras High Court suggested setting up of Special Courts covering 100 km radius or a Special Court for every four districts.
Justice B Pugalendhi suggested the same after noting that the Investigating officers were finding it difficult to follow up with the cases as they had to continuously travel long distances. The court added that the possibility of designating Additional District Courts as Special Courts to deal with EC/NDPS cases can also be explored
Case Title: P Rathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a batch of pleas challenging the premature release of 13 convicts who were convicted in the infamous Melavalavu Massacre.
While refusing to interfere with the order of the Government, the division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Sunder Mohan of the Madurai Bench noted that the order of premature release was made after due consideration exercising the State's power conferred under Article 161 of the Constitution. It included objections from the victim's family and the conduct of the accused.
[Sample Analysis] Unless Mandatory Time Limits Prescribed In Concerned Statutes Are Complied, Test Results Will Be Unreliable: Madras High Court
Case Title: Venkatesan @ Venkatesh v. State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
While quashing proceedings initiated against a man under Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the Madras High Court stressed that time limits prescribed under the Acts for sample analysis have to be adhered to.
Justice RN Manjula noted that the purpose of prescribing time limits for sending samples for analysis is to ensure that there is no further contamination in the chemical products. When these time limits are not complied with, the test results become unreliable.
Case Title: State v. VD Mohanakrishnan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
The Madras High Court recently found a court officer guilty of misusing his official position and cheating an illiterate man with a promise of securing a job for him and obtaining 40000 rupees for the same.
Justice P Velmurugan reversed the order of the Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act and convicted the court officer under Section 420 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The court further disagreed with the defendant that a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act would clarify that the money given was in fact a loan amount. The court also found it improbable that the respondent, a public servant would seek financial assistance from the complainant who was poor and jobless.
Case Title: C Kasthuriraj v. The State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
The Madras High Court has recently held that an order of Magistrate directing to register FIR cannot be quashed merely in the absence of recoding reasons on how the Magistrate was satisfied about the prima facie case.
Justice RN Manjula held that only when a mechanical order is passed on a bald complaint, the same can be set aside for not listing out the reasons.
The court added that though it would have been better if the Metropolitan Magistrate had recorded reasons, it could not be the reason to set aside the order when the complaint contained material particulars. Thus, it could be said that the order was passed without application of mind.
Case Title: M Narasimhan v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
While directing the Forest Range Officer to return a gun to a man accused under the Wildlife Protection Act, Justice V Sivagnanam of the Madras High Court noted that under Section 68 of the Forest Act 1927, when an offence is compounded, the person accused should be discharged and the property seized should be released.
The court thus, set aside the impugned order and directed the Forest Range Officer to return the gun and the bullets to the petitioner.
Case Title: Dr. R Hemamalini v. The Registrar, Annamalai University
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
The Madras High court recently directed Annamalai University to refund an amount of ₹10.5 lakh to a former student who had discontinued MBBS studies at the university and joined another college.
Observing that the vacant seat was subsequently filled and that the university did not suffer any loss, Justice K Kumaresh Babu of the Madurai bench noted that the institution could only retain the fee for the months during which the student had actually studied in the institution along with the processing fee. In the present case, however, the institution had withheld the entire fee for the first year.
Madras High Court Judge Says She Was Threatened After Reserving Order In Shiva Sankar Baba's Plea For Quashing FIR In Sexual Harassment Case
Case Title: Shiva Sankar Baba v. State and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
Justice RN Manjula of Madras High Court has revealed that she was sent “pseudonymous letters of threat” dissuading her from passing orders in a petition filed by self-styled godman Shiva Shankar Baba to quash the FIR filed against him in a sexual assault case.
Adding that such a cheap attitude only shows the cowardice of such persons, the Judge added that these attempts will not stand in her way of dispensing justice.
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.
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.
[Udumalai Sankar Honour Killing] Madras High Court Permits Wife To Conduct Honorary Meeting To Raise Awareness About Inter-Caste Marriages
Case Title: Kowsalya v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
The Madras High Court has permitted Kowsalya, wife of Sankar who was hacked to death for marrying from a different caste, to conduct a meeting in memory of Sankar. Kowsalya had approached the court after State denied permission for the meeting citing law and order problems.
Justice G Chandrasekharan noted that the offense of Honour killing was increasing every day and that honour killing was not eradicated in Tamil Nadu.
In such a situation, the court noted that the scope of starting the Sankar Social Justice Trust and organising a meeting to disseminate information against honour killing and promoting inter caste marriage was laudable. The court added that such object should not be prevented and prohibited by the court.
Madras High Court Quashes GOs Allowing Police To Exercise Power Of Executive Magistrate, Make Habitual Offenders Execute Bonds
Case Title: P Sathish @ Sathish Kumar v. State and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
The Madras High Court has held that appointing Deputy Commissioners of Police as Executive Magistrate is violative of the Constitution and the District Police Act.
A bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice Anand Venkatesh thus declared two Government Orders as unconstitutional, which gave Deputy Commissioners the powers of an Executive Magistrate while dealing with bonds for keeping peace.
The court added that if the police were allowed to continue with such powers, it would lead to anarchy as the entire process of investigation, prosecution and adjudication will be done by one branch of the executive - the police.
Case Title: S Nithya v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
The Madras High Court recently imposed ten thousand rupees cost on a Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate who had rejected the community certificate for two kids belonging to the Kattunayakan community.
The cost was imposed on a plea by the kid's mother seeking to quash the rejection order and to direct the authorities to issue the community certificate. In the present case, the mother of the kids belonged to the Kattunayakan Community (a Scheduled Tribe community) while their father belonged to the Pallar Community (a Scheduled Caste community).
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy took note of two Government Orders passed by the State in 1975 and 2021 which clarifies that when a child is born out of marriage between parents of two different caste, the children would be considered to belong to either of the caste based on the declaration by parents.
Madras High Court Orders Police Action Against Unqualified Alternative Medicine Practitioners, Says State Must Act Against Unrecognised Institutes
Case Title: Periya Elayaraja and others v. The District General of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
Refusing relief to 61 persons claiming to be practicing alternative medicine, the Madras High Court said that unqualified persons cannot claim any right to practice alternate medicines. The court was also critical of unrecognised institutions conducting six months medical courses and issuing diploma certificate and noted that the same would bring disastrous consequences for the society.
Justice SM Subramaniam said it is the duty of the State to ensure that these unrecognised institutions are dealt with properly and such invalid diploma certificates are cancelled.
Case No: Cont.P.No.2622 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
The Madras High Court recently ordered the Law Secretary of Tamil Nadu government to take disciplinary action against C Nagarajan, the Deputy Secretary of Law Department, for allegedly misbehaving with government pleaders inside court.
Calling the act “scandalizing” and “lowering the authority of the Madras High Court”, Justice MS Ramesh asked the Principal Secretary to place Nagaraj under suspension from service in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings.
Case Title: Leena Manimekalai v. Susi Ganeshan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
The Madras High Court recently ordered the transfer of a criminal defamation case against filmmaker Leena Manimekalai from a Metropolitan Magistrate Court to a different court within Saidapet. Director Susi Ganeshan had filed the criminal defamation case against Manimekalai after she accused him of sexual harassment during the MeToo movement.
Justice G Chandrasekharan noted that the magistrate had committed two procedural violations — the court had received proof affidavits of witnesses instead of examining the witnesses under oath in the open court and recording the chief examination, and the court had done examination of some witnesses (through proof affidavit) even prior to questioning the accused under Section 251 CrPC.
The court also noted that the Magistrate had permitted scrapping of evidence of certain witnesses even without giving opportunity to the petitioner to oppose the memo filed for scrapping the evidence.
Section 46(4) CrPC: Madras High Court Directs State To Frame Guidelines For Obtaining 'Prior Permission' Of Magistrate To Arrest Women At Night
Case Title: S Salma v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
The Madras High Court has directed the State government to ensure compliance with Section 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and frame guidelines for obtaining 'prior permission' of Judicial Magistrate to arrest women at night in exceptional circumstances.
Justice Anita Sumanth noted that the provision is mandatory; legislature took a restrictive approach in the construction of Section 46(4), perhaps in the face of possibilities for abuse in case of police discretion. However, since even the Supreme Court has noted the procedural difficulties with respect to obtaining prior sanction, the court thought it fit to direct framing of appropriate guidelines for arrest of women in such exceptional circumstances and obtaining of prior permission from Magistrate.
"We Are Still Stuck In Patriarchal Notions": Madras High Court Directs Issue Of Passport To Man Whose Mother Was Indian And Father A Srilankan Refugee
Case Title: Neyatitus v. The Regional Passport Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
The Madras High Court recently directed the Regional Passport authority to consider the representation of a man who had applied for an Indian Passport. Since his birth certificate showed him as a Srilankan refugee, he was called upon by the passport authorities to give an explanation.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench noted that though the petitioner's father was also a Srilankan refugee, the fact that his mother was an Indian citizen was not disputed. The court noted that we were still stuck in patriarchal notions as the authorities automatically assumed the petitioner will partake his father's nationality while his mother remained an Indian citizen making him eligible for an Indian passport. The court was thus convinced that the petitioner had made out a case for grant of relief and directed the authorities to process his application within a period of three weeks.
Case Title: Arulmigu Kalasalingam College of Education v. The Appeal Committee and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
While refusing to grant relief to Arulmigu Kalasalingam College of Education, the Madras High Court heavily criticised the college for admitting students in the 2021-2022 academic year when it did not have any affiliation.
Imposing a cost of five lakh rupees, Justice CV Karthikeyan said that the college should suffer the consequences of its actions and also left it open to the students to litigate against the college for the damages made.
Case Title: A Muthupandi v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
While dealing with an appeal challenging the conviction in a rape case, the Madras High Court recorded its displeasure at the manner in which cross-examination is being carried out in the trial courts. It is quite unfortunate that the trial court advocates are not developing their skills of cross examination, said the court.
Justice Anand Venkatesh said that the art of cross-examination was considered a crown in advocacy skills and if this art is lost, the charm of conducting a trial before a court will also be lost.
Case Title: Susamma Baby v. State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
While dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of a pastor who was detained under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, for sexually assaulting a physically and mentally challenged minor girl, the Madras High Court observed that the facts of the case "shocked the judicial conscience".
The division bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice KK Ramakrishnan added that, for invoking the Detention Act, the propensity of the act was more important than the habitual nature of the offence as the definition of “Sexual Offender” did not demand habituality.
Case Title: K Udhayakumar v. The District Collector and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
While dealing with a Public Interest Litigation seeking action against government officials for alleged misappropriation of funds under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojaya – Gramin (PMAY-G), the Madras High Court observed that the scheme was intended to provide houses to weaker sections of the society and strict action must be taken against officials who were misappropriating the funds under the scheme.
The division bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice Victoria Gowri of the Madurai bench took note of the submissions made by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department that steps have been taken to appoint verification officers in the cadre of Assistant Directors and Deputy Collectors to ensure proper implementation of the scheme.
Kalakshetra Row | Madras High Court Directs Foundation To Frame Policy Against Sexual Harassment, Constitute Complaints Committee In Schools Run By It
Case Title: XYZ and others v. Kalakshetra Foundation and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
The Madras High Court has directed the Kalakshetra Foundation to frame a policy against sexual harassment and to constitute a Complaints Committee with respect to its schools, both under the CBSE and the State Board.
The court also directed the foundation to submit the profiles of the members that are presently part of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted by the foundation on April 3.
The court further added that the interim protection that was granted to the students against any coercive action by the management for talking about the assault or participating in the Dharna, would also be applicable to the faculty members who came in support of the students.
Case Title: Ziyavudeen Baqavi v. The Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
While setting aside an NIA Court's order rejecting the discharge plea of a man accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), the Madras High Court has reiterated that courts should refrain from using crowd-sourced websites such as Wikipedia in legal dispute resolution.
The division bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice Nirmal Kumar relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Acer India case and Hewlett Packard case where the Apex court has cautioned against courts using sources like Wikipedia in legal dispute resolution.
Take Disciplinary Action Against Lawyers Issuing Fake Marriage Certificates: Madras High Court To State Bar Council
Case Title: Ilavarsan v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
The Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to initiate disciplinary action against lawyers who are conducting marriage ceremonies in their offices and issuing fake marriage certificates.
Noting that marriages performed by Advocates in their office are not valid marriages, the bench of Justice M Dhandapani and Justice R Vijayakumar held that the same have to be registered under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009 and the parties have to physically appear before the Registrar.
Normally Wouldn't Interfere With Probe But Can't Turn Blind Eye To Police Harassment Happening Under Guise Of Investigation: Madras High Court
Case Title: Rajini v The Superintendent of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
The Madras High Court recently observed that though courts normally do not interfere with the investigation carried out by police officers, it would also not turn a blind eye to instances of harassment by police under the guise of investigation.
Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup was dealing with a plea filed by one Rajini contending that the police were harassing her under the guise of an enquiry/investigation. The police authorities, on the other hand, submitted that a notice under Section 41A of CrPC was issued to the petitioner based on a complaint and pending enquiry.
The court noted that though the Magistrate is a guardian of all stages of police investigation, he does not have the power to interfere in the actual investigation. The court added that this has led to numerous cases of police harassment.
Case Title: Vadivel and others v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
While setting aside the conviction of a man charged for robbery, the Madras High Court emphasised on the need for Test Identification Parade. The court highlighted that punishing a person without proper identification will directly impinge his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Anand Venkatesh added that courts should not be swayed by emotions and must ensure that the accused persons are properly identified.
The court also noted that in many cases, the police officers usually show a habitual criminal as the accused as it was convenient. The court observed against this line of investigation and said that just because a person is a habitual criminal, he cannot not be held responsible for every crime that took place in the society. This attitude, according to the court, will cause a dent in the criminal justice system and will make the officers ineffective.
Case Title: Vediyappan v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 156
While setting aside the conviction of a man for the offence of acid attack and house trespass, the Madras High Court observed that the courts must be bound by legal evidence and not moral conviction.
Justice V Sivagnanam said that administration of justice in the country was founded on the principle that an accused person must be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In the present case, citing lack of evidence to connect the accused with the crime, the court noted that the appellant Vediyappan is entitled to acquittal.
Madras High Court Upholds Conviction Of Accused In Gokulraj Murder Case, Says They Were Under Influence Of 'Demon Called Caste'
Case Title: Yuvaraj v Additional Superintendent of Police and other (batch cases)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
The Madras High Court has upheld the life imprisonment of eight accused in the Gokul Raj murder case. The court altered the charges against two other accused to imprisonment of five years.
The division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the prosecution had proved the chain of circumstances that had led to the murder of Gokulraj by the accused persons.
Case Title: Abubakkar Shithik v State and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
The Madras High Court recently observed that the offence under Section 127A of the Representation of Peoples Act is a non cognizable one.
Justice Sunder Mohan held that since the punishment prescribed for the offence is imprisonment for a period of six months, as per Schedule II of the Criminal Procedure Code, it would be a non cognizable offence.
Case Title: Saravanan v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
The Madras High Court has directed the State Public Prosecutor to give instructions to the police officers appearing before court to come prepared with the particulars of the case.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandra passed the direction in a bail petition after noting that the police officer who was deputed by the investigation agency to assist the public prosecutor was fumbling in the court without knowing the particulars of the case.
Case Title: Ditty Mathew v. The Secretary and others (and connected case)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
The Madras High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation filed by students of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras seeking action against police officials who allegedly attacked students during a protest in 2017. The students were protesting against an attack on a PhD Scholar who had participated in a Beef Fest conducted by some students of the institute in light of the Union government's notification regulating the sale of cattle for slaughter.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu closed the petitions after noting that six FIRs have already been registered and that the cases are pending before the trial court. The court also said that even though students have the right to protest but they must do so in a peaceful manner in accordance with law.
Case Title: Satheesh Kumar v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 178
The Madras High Court recently observed that even though the law does not require investigating officers to take the opinion of the Public Prosecutors before filing Final Reports, it may sometimes prove to be counterproductive. Thus, the court noted that some methodology could be devised to ensure that the final reports are scrutinized by legally trained minds before they are filed in courts at least in cases involving serious offences.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh had earlier directed the Tamil Nadu government and the Director General of Police to respond to an order for establishing a specialised wing to improve the quality of investigation.
The court directed the Director of Prosecution to issue a circular to all Public Prosecutors sensitizing them to deal with Final Reports at the earliest. The court added that the prosecutors can inform the investigating officers about any defects which can be rectified before filing it in the Jurisdictional Courts. The court added that the circular shall make it abundantly clear that delay in scrutinization should not be the cause for delay in filing of Final reports beyond the Statutory period.
Case Title: K Janarthan v Mrs Vimala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
The Madras High Court recently criticised the manner in which All Women Police Stations across the State were functioning. The court noted that in Tamil Nadu, the police stations were reduced to places of corruption where the authorities proceeded to side with powerful parties. The court lamented that these institutions which were introduced to contribute to the society were now reduced to shameless "kangaroo courts".
Justice R Subramanian and Justice Victoria Gowri made these observations on a contempt petition filed by one K Janarthan alleging that the Inspector of All Women Police Station (Thilagar Thidal), Vimala, had arrested him without following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar and Lalitha Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh and had thus committed contempt of court.
Case Title: Pooja Chakravarthy v TN MGR Medical College
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
The Madras High Court has directed Sri Muthukumaran Medical College Hospital and Research Institute to deposit 2.76 crore rupees, that it allegedly collected as capitation fees/donation from students who were admitted following due procedure, into a joint account of authorities.
The court was hearing a plea filed by seven students against an order of the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University asking the institute to discharge nine students including the petitioners from pursuing the MBBS degree course.
Justice R Suresh Kumar directed the college to open a separate bank account jointly in the name of the Secretary of Selection Committee as well as the Registrar of the University so that it can be used for giving scholarships to meritorious students admitted to the first year in the 2023-2024 academic year. The court added that the University and the Selection Committee will decide as to whom such benefit shall be given.
Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Criminal Proceedings Against Pastor Accused of Human Trafficking
Case Title: Pastor Gideon Jacob v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash proceedings against Pastor Gideon Jacob, who has been accused of illegal running a home for girl children, and human trafficking.
Seeking quashing of the proceedings, Gideon had submitted that he was a dutiful citizen and a religious person who was running the home to save female children from being killed and from foeticide.
Police Personnel 'Authorised Officer' Under Mines And Minerals Act, Have Powers To Seize Vehicle, Compound Offences: Madras High Court
Case Title: S Kumar v The District Collector and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
The Madras High Court has ruled that there is no embargo in bringing police personnel under the ambit of “authorised officer” under Sections 21,22 and 23-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957. The full bench was hearing a reference made with respect to queries relating the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder and also various Government Orders issued based on the Act.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan, Justice M Dhandapani and Justice K Murali Shankar noted that two Government Order issued by the State in 2006 and 2009 respectively, granting the police personnel powers to carry out seizure of vehicles under the act is not illegal and such seizure is within the law.
Madras High Court Declares Election Of AIADMK MP P Ravindranath Null And Void
Case Title: P Milany v S Arumugam and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
The Madras High Court has declared the election of P. Ravindranath, son of former Tamil Nadu CM O Paneerselvan and the sole Member of Parliament from the AIADMK party null and void. The court however kept the order in abeyance for a month, to enable appeal against the order.
P Ravindranath, was the lone candidate of the AIADMK-NDA coalition to succeed in the 2019 Constituency Election from Theni Constituency.
Justice SS Sundar passed the order on an election petition filed by P Milany, a voter from the constituency, who had challenged his election on the ground of suppression of sources of income and bribing of voters.
Case Title: Sv. Rm. Ramanathan and Others v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
The Madras High Court on Monday quashed criminal proceedings under Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, initiated against Actor Dhanush, Director Aishwarya Rajnikanth and others by one Cyril Alexander for showing the actor smoking a cigarette in the posters of the movie “Velaiyilla Pattathari”.
Justice Anand Venkatesh said the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused persons will amount to an abuse of process of court.
Case Title: M Rajendran and Others v The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
While making critical remarks against corrupt practices prevalent among all levels of society, the Madras High Court noted that in present-day India,
Justice SM Subramaniam noted that corruption is a disease that eats into the cultural, political, and economic fabric of the society and destroys the functioning of vital organs. He added that corruption was not only found in illegalities but also to facilitate legal transactions. He noted that large scale corruption existed in Government and Police Departments and Higher Authorities are expected to be sensitive in the matter of corruption allegations.
Person Forwarding Social Media Message Liable For Its Contents : Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Criminal Cases Against S.Ve Shekhar
Case Title: S. Ve. Shekher v Al. Gopalsamy and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
The Madras High Court has recently refused to quash batch of criminal proceedings initiated against actor and BJP politician S.Ve Sheker for his derogatory remarks against women journalists. The cases were registered after Sheker had forwarded an abusive, derogatory and vulgar comment on his Facebook account in April 2018.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that Shekher was a person of high stature with many followers and he ought to have exercised more caution while forwarding messages.
The court added that we live in an era where social media has virtually taken over every individual's life where each message can reach the nook and corner of the world in no time. The court added that we were no suffering from “virtual diarrhoea” where we were bombarded with messages. Thus, the court added that every person must exercise social responsibility while creating or forwarding a message.
Madras High Court Upholds ED's Right To Take TN Minister Senthil Balaji Into Custody; Says 'If ED Can Arrest,They Can Seek Custody Too'
Case Title: Megala v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
Settling conflicting views regarding the power of the Enforcement Directorate to seek police custody of the accused, the Madras High Court ruled that the central agency was entitled to seek the custody of Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji in the money laundering case over the alleged cash-for-jobs scam.
Justice CV Karthikeyan, the third judge to whom the matter was referred to following a split in the division bench of Justices Nisha Banu and Bharatha Chakravarthy, ruled in favour of the ED.
Deciding a habeas corpus petition filed by Balaji's wife Megala, Justice Banu had held that Enforcement Directorate is not entrusted with the powers to seek police custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Differing from this opinion, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy had held that the Habeas Corpus Petition is not maintainable and the ED was entitled to police custody of the accused.
Now, Justice Karthikeyan has endorsed the view of Justice Chakravarthy by saying : "The fact that respondents(ED) can take custody for further investigation cannot be denied. The respondent, in this case, had a right to get custody. I would align my opinion with the reason given by Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy in this aspect".
Madras High Court Transfers Murder Trial Against DMK MP TRVS Ramesh From Cuddalore To Chengalpattu
Case Title: Senthilvel v. Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
The Madras High Court on Thursday transferred the trial in a murder case against DMK MP TRVS Ramesh from Principal District and Sessions Court in Cuddalore to Chengalpattu.
Justice Anand Venkatesh passed the order on a plea moved by Senthilvel, son of the deceased Govindarasu. Though Senthilvel had raised various allegations against the MP and other co-accused, the court observed that it was transferring the case not on the basis of the allegations, but considering that a fair trial would not be possible in Cuddalore district where the accused is a sitting MP.
'If Temples Are Going To Perpetuate Violence, It Would Be Better To Close Down Those Temples': Madras High Court
Case Title: K Thangarasu @ K Thangaraj v The Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
The Madras High Court on Friday lamented that temple festivals these days are merely becoming centre stage for groups to show their strength and no devotion is actually involved in conducting the stage.
Justice Anand Venkatesh also noted that these festivals end up perpetuating violence where different groups end up fighting with each other and it is better to close down such temples to avert these instances of violence. The court added that unless a man drops his ego and goes to the temple to seek blessings, the whole purpose of having a temple is of no use.
Ensure ICC As Per POSH Act Exists In Armed Forces; Impart Gender Sensitive Awareness To Armed Personnel :Madras High Court To Centre
Case Title: State v Commandant, Air Force Administrative College
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
While dealing with a case of sexual harassment of a woman air force personnel by another air force personnel, the Madras High Court directed the Central Government to ensure that a proper Internal Complaints Committee existed in the Armed Forces in compliance with the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Work Act. The court also directed the Central Government to sensitise the armed personnel by imparting gender-sensitive awareness training to achieve the objectives of the legislation.
The directions were issued by Justice RN Manjula after noting that the woman officer had resorted to filing a police complaint after being unsatisfied with the investigation carried out by the Air Force Authorities and after facing humiliation in the services and being threatened to withdraw the complaint.
Provide Job To Sister Of SC Man Killed In 2020 In Caste-Based Crime: Madras High Court To State
Case Title: Kalimuthu v The Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
The Madras High Court recently directed the State Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Theni District Collector, and the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer to provide employment to a woman, whose brother was killed in 2020, by considering her educational qualification as per Serial No. 46 of Annexure I r/w 12(4) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Rules, 2016.
Justice L Victoria Gowri of the Madurai bench observed that the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules mandate providing employment to at least one family member of a deceased person along with basic pension.
Case Title: Pascal Sasil R v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
The Madras High Court on Monday said that if a litigant harasses a lawyer over certain queries raised by the court, the lawyer can initiate action against such party.
The division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu made the remark while hearing a public interest litigation filed by a final year law student seeking to establish government run old age homes in every district of Tamil Nadu in accordance with Section 19(1) of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007.
When the case was taken up on Monday, the counsel for the petitioner submitted a memo to the bench informing the court that after the previous hearing, the petitioner had been harassing him. The lawyer sought to withdraw from the case.
The court, while allowing the counsel to withdraw from the case, said:
"The petitioner is also present here and seeks time to engage another lawyer. While we grant him time, this Court feels it necessary to reiterate that any queries posed by us are for the benefit of the litigants and queries do not indicate our order. Also, any advocate, who is harassed by a litigant following the court's queries, or even otherwise, is entitled to take appropriate action against the litigant".
Madras High Court Sentences IAS Officer To Two Weeks Imprisonment For Failure To Implement Court Order In Service Matter
Case Title: P Gnana Pragasam v Pradeep Yadav IAS and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
The Madras High Court has sentenced IAS officer Pradeep Yadav and two others to two weeks imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 each in a contempt case for failure to implement earlier orders of the court. The court observed that the officer had failed to implement the order of the court while he was holding the post of Principal Secretary to School Education Department.
Justice Battu Devanand refused to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the officers.
Madras High Court Suspends Sentence Of IAS Officer, Others In Contempt Case
Case Title: Muthupalanichamy and another v Gnana Pragasam and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
The Madras High Court has suspended the order of imprisonment against IAS officer Pradeep Yadav and two others in the contempt case for failure to implement court orders while he was holding the post of the Principal Secretary to the School Education Department.
The division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madurai bench suspended the sentence while hearing an appeal preferred against the order of the single judge.
Case Title: A Anand v. The Superintendent of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
The Madras High Court has asked the CBI to register a case based on a private complaint alleging misappropriation of funds by a former officiating Director of Human Resources Development Center at Pondicherry University.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that though the CBI had sought prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Under Secretary to the Government had not responded to the request and later, after filing of the writ, had informed the CBI that the Executive Council of the University had decided not to grant sanction.
Withholding Patient's Medical Information Will Amount To Professional Misconduct: Madras High Court
Case Title: Jothi v The State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
The Madras High Court has recently noted that a hospital's failure to provide information pertaining to the treatment given to a patient would amount to professional misconduct and would result in tortious liability as it infringes the patient's right.
Calling for digital maintenance of records, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench also noted that a patient's right to get all relevant records pertaining to his or her treatment can be effectuated only if the medical records are maintained digitally.
Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Student For Shouting Slogan Against BJP Govt On Flight With Tamilisai Soundararajan
Case Title: Lois Sophia @ Layis Shobia v. Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
The Madras High Court has quashed an 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 Dhanapal of the Madurai bench has ordered quashing the proceedings against the research scholar.
In September 2018, Sofia, a research scholar from Canada was arrested after she shouted “fascist BJP government down, down” on board a flight in the presence of Tamil Nadu BJP president Tamilisai Soundararajan who filed a complaint.
Case Title: P Vigneshwaran @ Viduthalai Sigappi v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
The Madras High Court recently stayed the criminal proceedings against Poet and Assistant Director P Vigneshwaran @ Viduthalai Sigappi for reciting a poem depicting Lord Ram, Lord Hanuman, and Lord Lakshman as manual scavengers.
Staying the proceedings in the FIR registered by Abhiramapuram police station, Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that a prima facie case was made out.
The case against Vigneshwaran was that while participating in a function on April 30, 2023, he recited a poem where Lord Ram, Hanuman, and Lakshman were depicted as manual scavengers and Goddess Sita closes the manhole when the other three were working inside, thereafter fleeing to Srilanka leaving behind a note requesting the readers not to open the manhole.
Claiming that the poem had the potential to inflict mental agony upon a majority of Hindus and was an insult to Hinduism, a case was registered based on a complaint by Suresh Parthasarathy, leader of Bharath Hindu Munnani for offences under Sections 153, 153(1)(a), 295A, 505(1) and 505(2) of the IPC.
'Need To Hang Heads In Shame Over Such Crimes When Our President Is A Woman': Madras HC Upholds Conviction In Girl Child Sexual Assault Case
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: 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: 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.
Order Allowing Extension Of Remand Is A Final Order, Appealable Under Section 21 NIA Act: Madras High Court
Case Title: Mohammed Hasan Kuthous v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
The Madras High Court has held that an order of trial court allowing an application filed by the prosecution seeking extension of remand of accused is not an interlocutory order but a final order and the same is amenable to appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act.
The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel rejected the prosecutor's argument that an order acceding to prayer for extension of remand is an interlocutory order. Prosecutor argued that while an order rejecting the extension of remand is appealable, an order allowing the same is not appealable. However, the court did not accept this view and referred to the age old adage “Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander too”.
Case Title: Dr. L Murugan v Murasoli Trust rep by its Trustee R.S. Bharathi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The Madras High Court on Tuesday refused to quash a defamation case filed against Union Minister Dr. L Murugan by DMK mouthpiece Murasoli Trust. The court also directed the Special Court to complete the trial within a period of three months.
The trust had filed a private complaint against the Minister under Section 499 and Section 500 of the IPC, for the remarks made by him in a press meet. It was alleged that the Minister's statements gave an impression that the Trust was being run on Panchami land (land that is distributed for Dalits in Tamil Nadu).
While refusing to quash the proceedings pending before the Special Court, Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that in cases of defamation, the statements had to be tested only from the point of view of common prudent man and that the statements put forward by the Minister would be understood as questioning the right and title of the property.
Using Political Power To Grab Land From Common Man Is Daylight Robbery: Madras High Court
Case Title: R Girija v S Ramalingam and Another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
“Using political power and influence to grab land from a powerless common man is nothing short of day-light robbery" the Madras High Court recently observed.
Justice SM Subramaniam added that large-scale exploitation of political power especially in land-grabbing matters would pave the way for unhealthy democracy and that this political power must be used for socially beneficial issues instead of personal gains.
The court also noted that politicians play an influential role in the lives of the common man and it was imperative that this power not be misused. The court noted that instead of having a positive and healthy impact on the lives of the people, the politicians these days were using their political connections to create nuisance to the public.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
Case Title: M Rajendran v The Superintendant of Police
The Madras High Court on Wednesday strongly criticised a political party's plea seeking protection and permission to celebrate Vinayaka Chathurthi by installing Vinayagar idol and carrying out processions.
Justice Anand Venkatesh criticized the political parties seeking police permission to carry out such processions without actually doing anything for the public. The court added that such issues are causing more public nuisance and also added that the police had much more productive work to do than provide protection for such political interests.
Illegal Fee Of Advocate Is Not A Legal Claim: Madras High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Client For Dishonour Of Cheque Paid To Advocate
Case Title: Davidraj v Palanivel
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a client who had been proceeded against the Negotiable Instruments Act based on a complaint by a lawyer for dishonor of cheque by observing that a fee, which is per se illegal as per the Legal Practitioners Rules, will not be a legal claim and a legal liability could not be fastened upon the client to pay the same.
Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai Bench thus quashed the proceedings before the Fast Track Court in Madurai after observing that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the client would be an abuse of the process of law.
Case Title: S Zahir Hussain v The State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
While setting aside a preventive detention order made by the State for detention of a lawyer in connection with smuggling under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974, the Madras High Court noted that the live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention had snapped.
Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel noted that while the proposal was made by the Sponsoring Authority on November 6, 2010, the detention order was made by the Detaining Authority only on December 30, 2010, after nearly eight weeks. Thus, relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others, the court observed that the live and proximate link had snapped.
Advocates Tend To React Aggressively Due To Profession, Shouldn't Be Prosecuted For It: Madras HC Quashes FIR Against Lawyer For Obstructing Survey
Case Title: C Raja v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
While quashing an FIR filed against an advocate for obstructing revenue officials from carrying out a survey, the Madras High Court noted that though the advocate had acted strongly, his intention was not to prevent the Government Officials from performing their duties but to protect and safeguard the rights of his client.
Justice Anand Venkatesh also observed that since the legal profession involves fighting for client's rights, Advocates usually tend to act more aggressively even outside courts. He added that the demeanour of an advocate was always different from that of a layman due to the nature of his work which requires him to react to situations boisteriously.
Case title: H Kalyan Singh vs. Dr Nirmalkathri and others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a Revision plea filed against a December 2016 order of the Magistrate Court in Chennai dismissing a complaint filed against former Congress MP Nirmal Khatri and ABP News for posting an alleged defamatory post against an RSS worker.
“In the considered view of this Court, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from apparent illegality or infirmity and it does not require the interference of this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction,” the bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed as it underscored that reviving the complaint at this stage would be like 'whipping a dead horse'.
Case Title: SA Syed Shaik Alaudeen v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
While refusing relief to a lawyer seeking compensation for the injuries he sustained at the hands of the police in connection with a PFI march, the Madras High Court emphasised that law applies not only to the State machinery but also to individuals.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench was constrained to make the statement after noting that the petitioner and other members of the organisation had conducted march from a different site than which was allowed by the police and when the police rushed to the spot, instead of responding in a peaceful manner, the members had exhibited defiance. Thus, the court opined that the assembly was unlawful and the conduct of the organisers was illegal.
Case Title: Mr Badhrisheshathiri v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
The Madras High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against political commentator Badri Seshadri for making adverse comments about the Chief Justice of India for taking up suo moto cognisance of the violence in Manipur. Seshadri was arrested on July 29, 2023 and later granted bail on August 1, 2023 by the District Munisff-cum-Judicial Magistrate court in Kunnam.
Justice Anand Venkatesh, who was hearing a plea by Seshadri for quashing the criminal proceedings, observed that the judiciary has very broad shoulders to take on criticism unless they directly interfered with the administration of justice.
The court also said that Seshadri's comments had to be looked at from the context in which it was made and though he used some expressions which seemed like a verbal attack on the CJI, he had later filed an affidavit in court expressing regret for such statement.
Madras High Court Frames Procedure For Police To Record Witness Statements Through Audio-Visual Electronic Means At Least In Serious Crimes
Case Title: Saibunisha (Died) and Another v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
Complying with an earlier order of the Supreme Court and in the interest of criminal justice system, the Madras High court has directed the Principal Secretary, Home Department and the Director General of Police to record statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC using audio-visual electronic means, at least in matters involving serious offences.
The court noted that in order to facilitate recording true version of witness' statement and to prevent growing tendencies of witnesses being threatened, induced, influenced etc, Section 161 CrPC was amended to record statements using electronic means. However, noting that the same was not being implemented the court made the direction.
Case Title: Mrs. Pista Kanwar v The Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
While setting aside the acquittal of a man in a case involving death of his wife by self-immolation, the Madras High Court has observed that the husband's illicit relation with his elder brother's wife would amount to cruelty on the wife within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC.
The High Court disagreed with the view taken by the trial court that such relation was only immoral and did not amount to cruelty. The court added that when such illicit relationship was happening inside the house under the pretext of “motherly affection” and which was witnessed by the victim herself, the trial court had erred in rendering such a find.
Case Title: Vinothini v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
The Madras High Court has made it clear that the habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of a person who is accused of committing offences under the Schedules Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not a 'connected proceeding' for the purposes of Section 15-A(3) and (5) of the Act.
The Sections make provision of notice and opportunity of hearing to the victim for any Court proceeding connected to his/her case, including bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused.
Court held that habeas corpus is a constitutional remedy available under Article 226(1) of the Constitution and thus, would not be covered under “proceedings” under the SC/ST Act.
Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel also observed that though sub-section 5 of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act talks about connected proceedings, such proceedings would mean conviction, acquittal or sentence and will not cover “connected proceedings”.
Case Title: Sri Kamatchi Amman Devasthanam v Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Wakf
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
The Madras High Court has directed two BJP MLAs from Puducherry and their family members to return vacant possession of a temple land allegedly grabbed by them illegally, to Sri Kamatchi Amman Devasthanam.
Justice SM Subramaniam also asked the father-son duo, A John Kumar and Vivilian Richards John Kumar, to subject themselves to probe being conducted by the Crime-Branch of Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) to initiate action under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. This was after Court formed a prima facie view that the preliminary investigation conducted by the agency reveals involvement of criminality.
1992 Vachathi Crimes: Madras High Court Upholds Convictions Of Police, Forest And Revenue Officials, Orders 10 Lakh Compensation For Rape Victims
Case Title: P Arunachalam(Died) and Others v The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Madras High Court on Friday (September 29) dismissed the appeals preferred by 126 forest officials, 84 police personnel and 5 revenue officials against their convictions and sentence for various crimes that took place in Vachathi, in Dharmapuri District of Tamil Nadu. Coincidentally, the Sessions Court judgment finding the accused guilty was also passed on September 29 in the year 2011.
Justice P Velmurugan called for stringent action against the then District Collector, District Forest Officer, and the Superintendent of Police.
The bench also directed the state to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakh each to the rape victims, of which 50% was to be recovered from the accused who were convicted for the offence of rape. The court also directed the state to give suitable employment to the victims whose houses were destroyed by the officials.
Case Title: Major General AK Gupta v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction of Major General AK Gupta for allegedly procuring supply/ration items during “Operation Pawan” of Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) troops in Srilanka in 1987, in violation of the prescribed procedures, rules, and regulations and thus causing heavy loss to the State.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that the Investigating officer had filed the final report with truncated material and without scrutinising the materials in its entirety. The court also observed that the officer escaping from custody while being sent to face General court martial and thus getting the court martial proceeding time-barred had also weighed in the mind of the trial court. Thus, the court opined that benefit of doubt had to be extended to the officer.
Case Title: S Gurumurthy v S Doraisamy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
The Madras High Court has observed that in a democracy driven by free speech, the courts cannot insulate themselves from criticism and cannot use their contempt power as a "shield to choke the voice of citizens".
“In a democracy driven by free speech, the Court cannot seek the comfort of the cocoon or aim to insulate itself from criticisms, just or otherwise. Contempt power is not a shield to choke the voice of the citizen in a free country,” the court said.
Justice N Seshasayee added that the basis for contempt jurisdiction is to preserve public confidence in the judiciary but it is important to ensure that the power is not used as a privilege by the court to roam free. He added that the judiciary should speak through its performance and pass the scrutiny of the citizens with the quality of its performance. Thus, he added that the courts should not be hyper-sensitive to every statement made against the institution and waste time on it.
Case Title: Ilampiraiyan v Mr Pethi @ Thirumalai Raja and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
The Madras High Court recently observed that while taking cognisance of a complaint under Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate could not look into the veracity of the witnesses. The court added that at the cognisance stage, the Magistrate could only check whether prima facie materials were available to constitute an offence or not.
Justice P Dhanabal of the Madurai bench relied on an earlier decision of the High Court in Mukesh Jain S/o.Prem Chand vs. Balachander and observed that at the cognisance stage, the Magistrate had to look into the complaint and other documents along with the sworn statement to see if a prima facie case was made out.
Case Title: Arjunan Sampath @ Arjun Sampath v The Sub-Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
The Madras High Court has quashed the proceedings against the President of the Hindu Makkal Katchi party Arjun Sampath pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam for violating the Code of Conduct during the 2019 Parliamentary Elections.
It was alleged that on April 5, 2019, Arjun along with his driver were canvassing votes for their political party without seeking any prior permission and had thus violated the Code of Conduct and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. As per Section 4AA (1-a) of the Act, no person shall affix to inscribe or exhibit any motor vehicle, any poster or any effigy, or any bill, notice, document, paper or other thing containing any words, signs, or visible representation. Thus, the vehicle was seized and handed over to the police and a case was registered against the duo.
Justice D Nagarjun of the Madurai bench, however, observed that the offences under the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 will not be attracted in the present case as the police had failed to produce any poster, banner or bill which was allegedly affixed on Sampath's motor vehicle.
Case Title: Dr Vinith v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a Doctor allegedly for causing the death of a patient due to a hair transplant.
Justice Sivagnanam said the matter needs to be adjudicated on the facts of the case which the High Court could not do under Section 482 CrPC. The court added that questions such as fitness of the centre to do hair transplants and competency of the doctor to perform the surgery had to be looked into, which required enquiry. Thus, finding that the plea did not meet the parameters for quashing the proceedings as laid down by the Supreme court, the court dismissed the petitions.
Case Title: Sutherson v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
The Madras High Court recently directed the trial of a murder case to be conducted inside the prison premises keeping in mind the life threat to the accused and the victims in the case. Noting that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary remedies, the court added that its powers were not fettered and could be used in extraordinary situations.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan was hearing an appeal by one Sutherson against the rejection of bail by the Special Court in Thoothukudi. The allegation against Sutherson was that he was involved in the murder of one Muthukumar, a practicing advocate in the Thoothukudi and the Tirunelveli Bar Association.
Case Title: N.Uganchand Kumawat v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
The Madras High Court recently emphasised that as per Section 52(A) of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, the samples have to be drawn in the presence of a Magistrate and merely producing the samples before the court after seizing it is not sufficient to fulfil such condition.
Justice P Dhanabal thus set aside the conviction of a man under the Act as the prosecution agency had failed to follow the procedures laid down under the Act and by the Apex Court.
Case Title: Barakathullah and Others v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
The Madras High Court recently granted bail to eight men, who were allegedly office bearers, members and cadres of the Popular Front Of India (PFI) and were charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for conspiring to commit terrorist act in various part of India.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan opined that the documents collected by the prosecution did not link any of the appellants directly to the offences alleged and hence the special court had erred in denying them bail.
Madras High Court Orders CBI Probe After Litigant Produces "Suspicious" Notification Claiming He Is Additional Judge Of Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title: Capt.Dr.VRC.Pandiyan v The Chairman and Managing Director
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
The Madras High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Madurai to conduct an investigation into a notification produced by a litigant before it claiming he is an Additional Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai bench directed the Superintendent to verify the genuineness of a notification dated 19.09.2021, which the litigant, Captain Dr VRC Pandiyan presented before the court saying that he had been appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The court asked the Superintendent to take appropriate action against those responsible for fabrication of notification and to verify whether Pandiyan had availed any benefits out of the notification.
Case Title: BR Aravindakshan v The Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 337
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to remove all unauthorized flag-poles erected on public roads and other public places and to prevent the erection of unauthorized flag-poles by political parties and other organizations in Tamil Nadu.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the petitioner, BR Aravindakshan had not given any details of alleged unauthorized erection of flag poles and had filed the plea only to ensure that flag poles are not erected in the future. The court thus observed that it could not entertain any petitions anticipating future contingencies.
The court also noted that the court had already passed orders with respect to erection of hoardings and flag-poles in 2019. The court added that if people continued to erect hoardings despite orders of the court, the same would be a contempt of court for which a contempt proceeding would be a better remedy.
Madras High Court Suggests Setting Up Of Special Courts To Deal With Cases Under Mines And Minerals Act
Case Title: Ramar v State (and connected cases)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
The Madras High Court recently suggested that special courts be set up to deal with offenses relating to illegal mining and transportation under the Mines and Minerals Act.
The court noted that presently the Principal District and Sessions Court assumed jurisdiction under the Act which was already accumulated with a number of cases besides administrative work. The court thus opined that for better implementation of the provisions of the Act, special courts could be constituted and suggested the Government to look into the same.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai bench made these observations after it was informed by the Director General of Police that from 2015 to May 2023, a total of 59,105 cases were registered under the Act and 63,542 vehicles that were involved in the transportation of illegal minerals had been seized. However, the court was informed that the confiscation proceedings were initiated against only 2,218 vehicles and completed only 385 cases. The court thus remarked that there was a requirement to complete the trial and confiscation proceedings in a timely manner.
Case Title: Mrs Nirosha v Principal Secretary to Government
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the wife of Tamil Nadu BJP functionary Amar Prasad Reddy seeking to forbear the State from detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Detention Act.
Justice G Jayachandran found the plea to be premature after taking note of the Public Prosecutor's submission that the State police had no proposal, as of now, to detain Amar under any prevention laws.
Amar, who is handling the Sports and Skill Development Cell for the BJP Tamil Nadu, was arrested on October 21 this year in connection with the alleged attacking and damage of a JCB machine brought to remove the illegal and unauthorized flag poles outside the residence of TN BJP Chief K Annamalai.
Amar's wife Nirosha had approached the High Court with the present plea claiming that Amar was not present at the scene of occurrence and that he was arrested from his residence the following day without following any due process as stipulated under the DK Basu guidelines.
Case Title: Tribhuwan Kumar Tiwari v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
The Madras High Court quashed the detention order passed against Youtuber Manish Kashyap under the National Security Act for allegedl circulating fake videos of migrant workers from Bihar being attacked in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The Madurai bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel dropped the proceedings against Kashyap under the National Security Act but allowed the proceedings under the Information Technology Act to continue. While quashing the detention, the court observed that the authorities had not followed due procedure while detaining Kashyap under the NSA Act. The court thus directed Kashyap to be set at liberty if he was not needed in connection with any other case.
Merely Threatening By Claiming To Be Associated With ISIS Terrorists Not By Itself UAPA Offence: Madras High Court
Case Title: Mohamed Irfan v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
While granting bail to a man accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Madras High Court recently observed that merely threatening a person by claiming to be associated with an ISIS terrorist will not be a ground to hold that the person was supporting the terrorist organization. The court added that though such threats would be an offense, it was not an offense under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan also observed that the materials produced by the prosecution did not show an intention to support the terrorist organization but only showed that the appellant had handled the funds for the prime accused which was different than supporting a terrorist organization. The court added that for bail while alleging conspiracy under the UAPA Act, it was necessary to show exactly what the terrorist act was agreed to be committed.
Case Title: AM Paramasivan and another v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
While deciding a 23-year-old appeal against the order of Special Judge sentencing former Minister for Labour Welfare Late AM Paramasivam and his wife under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Madras High Court confirmed the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed on the minister's wife Nallammal.
Paramasivam was a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly during the period 1991 to 1996 and served as the Minister for Labour Welfare in Government of Tamil Nadu during 1993-1996. During this period, Paramasivam, along with his wife had acquired properties beyond their known pecuniary resources during the check period between 1991 to 1996.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that the Minister, being a public servant had acquired wealth 400% above his known sources of income and his wife had lend her name in acquiring properties through undeclared sources thus committing the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Doctors Conducting 'Two Finger Test' On Rape Survivors Will Be Guilty Of Misconduct: Madras High Court
Case Title: State v XXX
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that medical practitioners who continued to conduct Two-Finger Test banned by the Supreme Court will be guilty of misconduct.
The bench of Justice SS Sunder and Justice Sunder Mohan made the observation while coming across a Medico-Legal Examination report in a rape case where a Two Finger Test had been conducted. The court expressed regret that even after directions from the Supreme Court and the High Court, doctors were still continuing to conduct the test. Madras High Court Stays ED Summons To District Collectors In Sand Mining Money Laundering Case
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
The Madras High Court has stayed the operation of the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate to the district collectors in sand mining money laundering case. The court has however allowed the investigation to go on.
The division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan passed the interim orders in a batch of pleas challenging the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate to District Collectors in Tamil Nadu in an alleged sand mining money laundering case. The court granted three weeks time to the directorate to respond to the case.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of Former MP TM Selvaganapathy In Cremation Shed Scam
Case Title: T M Selvaganapathy and Others v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction of former Rajya Sabha MP T M Selvaganapathy in the cremation shed scam.
Justice G Jayachandran acquitted Selvaganapathy and set aside the sentence of two years imprisonment imposed by a special court for CBI cases in 2014. Selvaganapathy had lost his Rajya Sabha membership following the conviction.
The CBI court had sentenced Mr. Selvaganapathy, the then Minister for Rural Development and Local Administration; J.T. Acharyulu, former Secretary, Rural Development; M. Sathyamurthy, former Director, Rural Development; M. Krishnamurthy, retired project officer; and T. Bharathi to two-year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on each of them.
Case Title: Yohann J.Setna v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
The Madras High Court recently quashed a forgery case upon noting that the final report on the matter had been filed after an inexplainable delay of seven years. The court noted that the trial court should not have taken cognizance of the final report as the same was barred by limitation.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that the purpose of a speedy trial was to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing a positive obligation on the courts and the prosecution. In the present case, the court observed that when the delay was not due to the fault of the petitioner, allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of law.
Case Title: K Annamalai v V Piyush
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
The Madras High Court has recently stayed all further proceedings against Tamil Nadu BJP Head K Annamalai in the defamation case filed by one V Piyush.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that prima facie, a case had been made out to quash the defamation complaint, as Piyush failed to establish his locus standi.
The case pertains to alleged hate speech made by Annamalai against a Christian Missionary NGO. The leader is stated to have said that it was the Christian NGO that first approached the Supreme Court to ban crackers during Diwali.
In October this year, the Tamil Nadu Government had accorded sanction to prosecute Annamalai. In his legal opinion, State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah stated that Annamalai had intentionally and out of context uttered remarks about the Christian Missionary NGO which forced the missionary to file a petition before the Supreme Court.
Orders Passed Under S.194 CrPC Purely Administrative, Cannot Be Questioned Unless Apparently Illegal: Madras High Court
Case Title: M Palani v The State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
The Madras High Court recently observed that the orders passed under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are purely administrative in nature and cannot be challenged unless they are apparently illegal and passed without any application of mind.
Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench dismissed a plea preferred by an accused seeking for transfer of his trial from one court to another, upon court pointing out that the impugned order was one passed by the Principal Sessions Judge in the ordinary course of business and there was no reason to interfere with the same.
Case Title: State v RS Rajesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
While dealing with a case relating to the unauthorized dumping of bio-medical waste from Kerala to Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court recently noted that suitable amendments needed to be brought into the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 (Preventive Detention Act) so that those violating the provisions of the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules 2016, are covered under the definition of “Goondas” under the Act.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai bench was informed that the Advocate General had given a positive opinion to bring the violators under the Detention Act for strict action to be taken against them. Noting that the steps taken by the government were appreciable, the court added that the state was expected to take necessary steps to bring suitable amendments to the Act.
The court was hearing a revision petition filed by the State challenging an order of the Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam, allowing interim custody of a vehicle involved in dumping of medical waste.
Whether Killing Of Hindu Religious Leaders Would Itself Constitute A Terrorist Act Is Debatable: Madras High Court
Case Title: Asif Musthaheen v State, Criminal Appeal No.542 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
While dealing with a bail plea of a man arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Madras High Court noted that the question of whether killing a Hindu religious leader would itself constitute a terrorist act was debatable.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that as per Section 15 of the UAPA, the act must have been done with an intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with an intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country. In the present case, the court noted that there was no evidence to conclude that there was a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act.
Case Title: Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. G Sampath Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
The Madras High Court sentenced IPS officer Sampath Kumar to 15 days simple imprisonment in a contempt plea moved by cricketer MS Dhoni.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan however suspended the sentence for 30 days to allow Sampath Kumar to file an appeal.
Dhoni contended that the IPS officer made disparaging and derogatory remarks against the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court which is capable of shaking the faith of the common man in the judicial system and thus constitutes criminal contempt.
Case Title: J Vivek v Principal Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a PIL seeking CBI enquiry into the arrest of Ankit Tiwari, the Enforcement Directorate Officer arrested by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for allegedly collecting Rs 20 Lakh bribe from a government doctor threatening to reopen a case against him.
The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel dismissed the plea and remarked that the State investigating agency had the power to investigate when the officers in the central force were engaged in such wrongdoings.
Madras High Court Sentences TN Minister Ponmudi To 3 Year Imprisonment In Disproportionate Asset Case
Case Title: State v K Ponmudi and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
The Madras High Court has sentenced Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudi and his wife Visalakshi to three year simple imprisonment and 50 lakh fine each in a disproportionate asset case.
Justice G Jayachandran gave 30 days to the parties to surrender and added that the parties could work out their remedies before the Supreme Court during this time. The court also said that any decision on an extension of the time would be considered later if the couple could not work out their remedies before the Apex Court. The court also remarked that if it was any other ministry the matter would have been different but the Minister had committed the offence being in charge of the Ministry of Higher Education which affected the future generation also.
On Tuesday, the court had set aside the acquittal of the Minister and his wife finding them guilty of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. With this order convicting the Minister under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Ponmudi will be disqualified as a legislator under Section 8 of the Representation of People Act 1951.
Case Title: P Mohanraj v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
The Madras High Court recently directed the Madurai District Administration and the Municipal corporation to jointly conduct the Jallikettu festival in Avaniyapuram.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that the festival should be conducted peacefully without bringing in religion and caste.
The court was hearing a plea moved by Mohanraj, a resident of Avaniyapuram area. Mohanraj had approached the court seeking directions to the authorities to conduct the festival. He claimed that several petitions had been filed before the district administration seeking permission to conduct the Jallikattu festival, which, if allowed, would create a law and order problem and hamper the smooth conduct of the festival.
Case Title: R Suresh Kumar v The Principal Secretary to Government
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
The Madras High Court recently upheld the State Government's power to appoint Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors under Section 24 (6A) of the CrPC. The court added that this power was dehors the regular cadre and the appointment of special Public Prosecutors for particular cases.
The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel was hearing a plea by Advocate, Suresh Kumar challenging the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors in District courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madurai bench. It was contended that the Government was appointing District Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors without taking recourse to recruitment of cadre Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors.
Case Title: A Vasanthi v S Jayakumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
The Madras High Court recently directed the State government to re-look the scheme for payment of compensation to victims in hit-and-run cases. Noting that the compensation that was currently being awarded was terribly low compared to the compensation awarded to road accident victims under the Motor Vehicles Act, the court added that this prompted people to plant vehicles to claim higher compensation.
Justice R Subramaniam and Justice N Senthil Kumar also noted that in some cases, the police connived with the victims of road accidents as the investigation relating to road traffic accidents was not done as seriously as in other crimes and thus resulted in slackness. To avoid these situations, the court also suggested the Director General of Police ensure that FIRs are not closed for non-filing of final reports within the time prescribed under Section 468 of CrPC thus requiring the police to file a final report in all cases.
POCSO
Case Title: Manikandan v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
While refusing to set aside the conviction of a man who was charged under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Madras High Court held that in POCSO cases, the description of the incident by the child assumes a lot of significance to come to a conclusion as to whether there was penetrative sexual assault in a given case. The bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that from the perspective of the child, a sexual assault may only be understood as a physical assault as the child is unaware of what a sexual assault is. Thus, the courts have to look into the description of the offence and come to a conclusion.
Case Title: State v. Dadayutham @ Kannan and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
The Madras High Court recently reversed the findings of trial court and sentenced a man to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for sexually molesting an 8-year-old girl child.
Finding the man guilty for the offences of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and for rape, sexual assault and criminal trespass under the Indian Penal Code, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the trial court had acquitted the man based on irrelevant considerations and materials while ignoring the relevant materials such as the deposition of the child and the corroborative evidence.
The court added that the findings of the trial court was perverse and was impossible given the nature of the offence.
Case Title: Kajendran v Superintendent of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
Noting that the Potency Test in cases involving sexual offences are still being conducted by collecting sperm from the offender, the Madras High Court has directed the authorities to come up with a standard operating procedure for conducting potency tests using blood samples.
The division bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sundar Mohan said its wants to ensure that the Two-Finger Test and the Archaic Potency Test are discontinued.
The bench was constituted to monitor the implementation of provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Juvenile Act on the judicial side.
Case Title: Kajendran v Superintendent of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
The Madras High Court has observed that when a minor seeks to terminate a pregnancy arising out of a consensual sexual relationship, the registered medical practitioner may not insist on disclosure of the name of the minor for preparing a report under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act as sometimes the minor and their guardian may not be interested in proceeding further with the case.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sunder Mohan thus directed the Principal Chief Secretary (6th respondent in the case) to address the issue and evolve a procedure to strictly comply with the judgment of the Apex Court in Xvs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department wherein the Apex court had also ruled against the insistence of name.
Case Title: Mariappan v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
The Madras High Court has recently observed that though there is a statutory presumption with respect to the guilt of an accused under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), this presumption will not operate when the prosecution has failed to prove some foundational facts with respect to the case.
Justice K Murali Shankar thus acquitted a man, Mariappan, convicted under the Act after noting that the prosecution had failed to prima facie prove that the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl.
The court also lamented that the police had failed to identify the real culprit even after knowing that the accused was not the biological father of the child born to the victim. The court added that it was painful that the police had stopped their investigation with the accused, because of which the real culprit was roaming in the society.
Noting that no child should be allowed to be bastardized, the court directed the police to proceed with further investigation to find out the real culprit within a period of four months. To negate the possibility of implicating other innocent persons by the police agency, the court also directed the police to conduct DNA test on the suspected accused without arresting them, and proceed with law only if the test proves positive.
Case Title: P Prathap Kumar Nayak v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of an Army Jawan who was sentenced to ten years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 by a POCSO Court.
Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup observed that though the prosecution had claimed that there was insertion resulting in bleeding, there was no evidence to prove aggravated sexual assault and thus the allegations were without any medical evidence. The court further observed that when the charges were not proved by medical evidence, mechanical application of presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act would result in the miscarriage of justice.
BAIL
'Misbehaviour Caused In A Drunken Mood': Madras High Court Grants Bail To Accused In SC/ST Case
Case Title: Sivankalai v. The State and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
The Madras High Court recently granted bail to a man arrested for misbehaving with a woman belonging to the SC/ST Community.
While Justice G Ilangovan agreed that the man was not having good conduct, the court noted that considering the period of incarceration and the fact that the alleged act was done in a drunken state, the man was entitled to bail.
Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To BJP's Prashant Umrao In FIR Over Tweets Regarding Bihar Migrant Workers In TN
Case Title: Prashant Umrao @ Prashant Kumar Umrao v. Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
The Madras High Court has granted anticipatory bail to UP BJP Spokesperson Prashant Umrao in an FIR lodged by the Tamil Nadu police against him for allegedly spreading false information on the alleged attacks against the migrant workers from Bihar in Tamil Nadu.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan granted anticipatory bail on the condition that Umrao will file an undertaking stating that he will to tweet or forward any such message to promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc., before the jurisdictional magistrate.
Madras High Court Grants Bail To Four Accused Of Obstructing Temple Demolition
Case Title: Sankar v The State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
Recently, while disposing of a bail application preferred by two men including a lawyer who were alleged to have trespassed into a temple property and prevented the revenue officials from removing the illegal encroachments, the Madras High Court noted that the court could not be a silent spectator to the act of bulldozing.
Justice G Jayachandran made the remarks on coming to know that the government officials had, in the guise of evicting the encroachers, demolished the age-old structure.
Case Title: S Megala v The State and others
Citation 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 167
The Madras High Court denied interim bail to Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji but allowed his family's request to transfer him to a private hospital — Kauvery Hospital, for treatment.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy passed the orders on the habeas corpus petition filed by Meghala, Balaji's wife.
The court said that since a challenge has been raised in the manner of his arrest, the question would be whether all the procedures have been followed and whether there was any illegality. The court said that it would take up the petition and issued notices to the respondent authorities to be returnable by June 22.
The court also noted that in matters concerning health, one should be allowed to get treatment at a place of his choice.
The court noted that since both the doctors at Omandurar Government Hospital and the ESI doctors have suggested immediate treatment to Balaji, it would be better of he is given such treatment. At the same time, the court said that the medical expenses should be met by Balaji himself.
Since ED had objected to Balaji's transfer to a private hospital, the court, while allowing the transfer, also directed that the team of doctors constituted by ED can regularly monitor Balaji's treatment at the private hospital.
Madras High Court Grants Bail To Lawyer Arrested Under UAPA By NIA For Alleged Links With PFI
Case Title: M Mohammed Abbas v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
The Madras High Court has granted bail to Mohammad Abbas, a Madurai based lawyer who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for his alleged links with the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) organization.
The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel allowed the appeal preferred by the lawyer against the order of the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Case) Poonamallee denying him bail. The court however dismissed another quash petition filed by the lawyer and said that arguments regarding malicious initiation of proceedings could be raised during the trial.
The court also rejected an oral request made by the Special Public Prosecutor seeking certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134-A of the Constitution saying that Section 43D of UAPA requires to be interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Aashik Ali v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
The Madras High Court has granted bail to an advocate who was arrested in a drugs case for the offences of Section 8(c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (A), 22(c), 29(1) of the NDPS Act.
Finding that the advocate Aashhik Ali satisfies the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira granted him bail.
The court also noted that except for the alleged money transactions which were done between Aashik and the accused, there was no material nor recovery.
Case Title: Selva Muthukumar and Others v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
While granting anticipatory bail to a group of students, the Madras High Court directed them to clean the classrooms for a week and to prepare handwritten notes on non-violence from the excerpts of Mahatma Gandhi, educational schemes promoted by former Chief Minister K Kamraj and dream and vision of Dr. Abdul Kalam.
Justice RMT Teeka Raman specifically directed the students to not prepare the articles using copy-paste from Google and asked the articles to be handed over to the School Principal of Montfort Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Yercaud who shall then host the articles on the school website for one year.
Case Title: TTF Vasan @ Vauikunthavasan v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
The Madras High Court has denied bail to YouTuber and biker TTF Vasan who was arrested in September this year for rash driving after he was injured while performing a "wheelie" in the Chennai-Bengaluru highway.
Justice CV Karthikeyan noted that the youtuber, who has around 4.5 million followers should learn a lesson. The court took note of the Additional Public Prosecutor's submission that the youtuber had a large influence on youngsters, who ended up asking their parents to buy expensive bikes, and ended riding them in a rash manner on public roads.
Case Title: R Kumaraguru, Ex MLA v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
The Madras High Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to AIADMK MLA Kumaraguru after noting that the MLA had tendered a public apology on October 9th to Chief Minister Stalin and State Minister Udayanidhi Stalin, for making derogatory remarks against them.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that considering the public apology and the fact that Kumaraguru had immediately shown regret for his speeches, anticipatory bail could be granted.
Kumaraguru had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail after a case was registered against him for allegedly making defamatory and derogatory statements against the Chief Minister and the Youth Welfare Minister in a public meeting held on September 19, 2023.
Madras High Court Refuses Bail To Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji On Medical Grounds
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v The Deputy Director
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
The Madras High Court on Thursday rejected the bail plea by Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji. Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June this year in connection with a cash-for-job money laundering case.
Justice G Jayachandran dismissed the application made by the Minister seeking bail on Medical grounds. The court observed that Balaji's medical condition was not one that could be taken care of only if he was released on bail.
The court also added that Balaji's present position as a Minister without portfolio, abscondance, and non-cooperation by his brother and co-accused Ashok Kumar and the attacks on the income tax officials during the time of the raid would all lead to a conclusion that he could directly or indirectly influence the witnesses.
Case Title: B Mubeena v The State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
The Madras High Court has granted interim bail to SA Basha, founder of the banned terrorist organization Al-Ummah and one of the convicts in the 1998 Coimbatore Blasts case.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan decided to grant him interim bail for a period of 3 months after noting that he is bedridden and undergoing treatment in the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. The court thus granted bail on the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Considering that Basha was taking treatment for his illness, the court also deemed it fit to dispense his reporting before the local police station. The court however directed the State authorities to submit a report regarding his conduct before the expiry of the three-month period and asked Basha not to leave the State of Tamil Nadu without informing the local police station in writing.
UAPA | 'Preparatory Act To Terrorist Act Must Be Proximate To Intended Result' : Madras High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members
Case Title: Barakathullah and Others v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
The Madras High Court recently granted bail to eight men, who were allegedly office bearers, members and cadres of the Popular Front Of India (PFI) and were charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for conspiring to commit terrorist act in various part of India.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan opined that the documents collected by the prosecution did not link any of the appellants directly to the offences alleged and hence the special court had erred in denying them bail.
Case Title: S.Rajasekaran @ Satta Rajasekar v The State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
The Madras High Court recently refused to grant bail to a man who had misrepresented himself as being a lawyer and cheated a client, the complainant.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan dismissed the appeal preferred by the man against conviction by a Special Court by observing that the special judge had rightly denied bail in the interest of society.
The court noted that Rajasekaran had committed serious offences by abusing the defacto complainant using a caste name in public places, receiving fees by claiming himself to be an Advocate and refusing to repay the fee already collected.
Relying upon the precedent laid down by the Apex court with respect to considering bail applications, the court opined that the special judge was right in dismissing the bail plea in the interest of society and thus dismissed the appeal.
Flagpole Case: Madras High Court Grants Bail To BJP Functionary Amar Prasad Reddy
Case Title: S Amar Prasad @ Amar Prasad Reddy v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
The Madras High Court granted bail to BJP leader Amar Prasad Reddy arrested in connection with the alleged attacking and damage of a JCB machine brought to remove the illegal and unauthorized flag poles outside the residence of TN BJP Chief K Annamalai.
Justice CV Karthikeyan granted bail to Amar and other accused after recording their undertaking to pay an amount of Rs.12,000 towards the damage caused to the JCB. The court also asked all the accused to submit the undertaking within 3 days of being released on bail.
Case Title: Mohamed Rifas @ Mohamed Rigbas v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
The Madras High Court recently observed that in extraordinary circumstances, the High Courts had discretion to grant bail even to a person who is not an Indian Citizen.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan was hearing appeals preferred by persons whose bail was canceled by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act 2008. The court noted that bail was canceled for one of the appellants, Mohamed Rifas, alleging that he had suppressed his nationality and had obtained bail.
The court noted that even assuming Rifas was a Sri Lankan national, his liberty could not have been curtailed after 4 years merely because of an FIR. The court also noted the prosecution had not filed a petition for cancelling the bail immediately after the registration of FIR but had filed the application after 3 years without explaining the reasons for the delay.
Case Title: C Alagappan v The State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
The Madras High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to producer Alagappan and his family in a cheating case registered by Actress Gauthami.
Noting that there was prima facie material, Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the facts not only revealed cheating but also misappropriation and siphoning of funds for personal gains. The court also remarked that Alagappan and his family intended to cheat a damsel, already in distress who was trying to provide security for her daughter.
High Court Denies Bail To ED Officer Arrested By Tamil Nadu DVAC For Allegedly Taking ₹20 Lakh Bribe
Case Title: Ankit Tiwari v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
The Madras High Court on Wednesday rejected bail to Enforcement Directorate Officer Ankit Tiwari who was arrested by the Tamil Nadu Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing for allegedly collecting a Rs 20 lakh bribe from a government doctor by threatening to reopen a case against him.
Justice V Sivagnanam of the Madurai Bench dismissed the bail plea moved by the officer.