Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 5 to August 11, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

M Kathirvel v The Inspector General of Registration, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 299

Kompress India Private Limited Versus Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 300

NT Stalin Barathi v The District Collector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 301

P.Sibiga Dharshini v The District Collector and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 302

Suo Motu RC v Additional Superintendent of Police and Suo Motu RC v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 303

Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The Directorate of Enforcement and another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 304

G Pandi v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 305

A Kamala v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 306

REPORT

Madras High Court Strikes Down Section 77A Of Registration (Tamil NaduSecond Amendment) Act As Unconstitutional

Case Title: M Kathirvel v The Inspector General of Registration

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 299

The Madras has held that the 2022 Amendment which introduced Section 77A to the Registration Act with respect to Tamil Nadu and gave powers to the District Registrar to cancel an instrument if it was found to be fraudulent or bogus was unconstitutional.

The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar held that through the amendment, the registering authority was given an unfettered, unguided, and unlimited power which may end up causing irretrievable damage to the real owners of the properties and affect their rights.

Detention Order Can't Be Issued If Driver In Possession Of Valid E-Way Bill In Physical/Electronic Form: Madras High Court

Case Title: Kompress India Private Limited Versus Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 300

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court while quashing the detention order held that if an invoice, bill of supply, delivery challan, or bill of entry and a valid e-way bill in physical or electronic form for verification are available, then action may not be initiated.

The bench of Justice S.Srimathy has observed that the respondent department issued the notice, carried out the inspection on the same day, and also passed the order on the same day. As per the provisions prescribed, the respondents department ought to grant time for seven days to reply. Since the inspection, notice, and orders were passed on the same day, there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

Person Inviting Threat By His Criminal Or Anti-Social Activities Not Entitled To Police Protection: Madras High Court

Case Title: NT Stalin Barathi v The District Collector

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 301

While rejecting a man's application for police protection, the Madras High Court recently observed that police protection should be granted only in appropriate cases, and granting police protection to a person who had invited a situation of threat due to his criminal or anti-social activities will be against public morality.

The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar added that in our country, several journalists had lost their lives for publishing news against corruption and social evils, government officials were murdered while preventing illegal sand mining and theft and people fighting for public cause were targeted. The court added that the state could consider granting police protection to such protection but not to persons who, due to their own conduct, were faced with threat perception.

Madras HC Quashes Loan Condition Seeking Apology From Applicant For Sticking Posters Against Bank, Says It's A Legitimate Mode Of Protest

Case Title: P.Sibiga Dharshini v The District Collector and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 302

The Madras High Court recently quashed a pre-release condition imposed by the Indian Overseas Bank asking a student to give an apology letter for circulating posters against the Bank while sanctioning her education loan.

Justice Murali Shankar noted that the Nationalised Banks could not treat a loan applicant, especially a student as their servant or a person obeying their orders. The court added that even if it was accepted that the student's father was the office bearer of the NGO which had protested against the Bank, it was not a ground for the Bank to seek an apology from the student who had nothing to do with the protest.

Madras High Court Sets Aside Discharge Of Ministers KKSSR Ramachandran & Thangam Thenarasu In Disproportionate Assets Case

Case Title: Suo Motu RC v Additional Superintendent of Police and Suo Motu RC v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 303

The Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside the discharge of Ministers KKSSR Ramachandran and Thangam Thenarasu in disproportionate assets case.

Justice Anand Venkatesh reversed the discharge of the ministers and directed them to appear before the Special Court. Finding that there was prima facie material to proceed with the trial, the court directed the special court to frame charges and proceed with the trial expeditiously on a day-to-day basis.

Calling it one of the worst forms of abuse of process, the court noted that the conduct of the Investigating Officers pointed to a clear nexus between the DVAC and politicians to ensure that criminal prosecutions were short-circuited against the ministers after they came to power. The court added that the statutory power of further investigation had been used for oblique purposes.

Madras High Court Dismisses TN Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan's Plea Challenging PMLA Proceedings By ED

Case Title: Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The Directorate of Enforcement and another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 304

The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Minister challenging the PMLA proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Proceedings against him.

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam dismissed Radhakrishnan's plea and asked him to cooperate with the investigating agency to complete the probe in the money laundering case and allow it to file a final report before the special court.

The allegation against the Minister is that while serving as an MLA of Tiruchendur Assembly Constituency and subsequently as a Minister for Housing and Urban Development Department during the period from 2002-2006, he acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.2,68,24,7555/- in his name, his wife's name, two brothers and three sons. Based on this, the Directorate of Enforcement filed an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) which was sought to be quashed in the present case.

Madras High Court Forbids Deity's "Imprisonment", Says Temple Can't Be Sealed Citing Law & Order Without Allowing Customary Puja

Case Title: G Pandi v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 305

The Madras High Court recently expanded the scope of treating a deity as a juristic personality in law and held that when an idol in a temple is treated as a living person, closing the temple without allowing the customary pujas would amount to the deity's imprisonment. The court observed that no temple could be locked and sealed on the grounds of law and order.

Justice GR Swaminathan observed that just like how a devotee has the right to offer worship, the deity also has a right to observance of the customary rituals. The court highlighted that it had to exercise parens patriae jurisdiction whenever the interests of minors, the mentally ill, and idols were at stake and thus, it was the duty of the court to uphold the right of the parties to perform rituals. The court thus made it clear that as long as there was no practice of untouchability or other practices offending the rights of others, a temple could not be closed or shut down indefinitely.

Madras High Court Sets Aside Detention Of Youtuber Savukku Shankar, Says There Was An Element Of Malice In Entire State Action

Case Title: A Kamala v State and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 306

The Madras High Court on Friday set aside the detention of Youtuber Savukku Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam ordered Shankar to be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case. The court observed that the detention order passed by the State was not compliant with the essential requirements for invoking the Preventive Detention Act.

The court noted that there was an element of malice in the action taken by the State. The court observed that the State had moved with a prejudicial view in light of the publications made by Shankar against the Government and its officials.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

"People In Power Should Be More Conscious": Madras HC On Minister Shobha Karandlaje's Remarks Linking Rameswaram Cafe Bombers To Tamil Nadu

Case Title: Shobha Karandlaje v State

Case No: Crl OP (MD) 9875 of 2024

"People in power should be more conscious while making statements," the Madras High Court on Wednesday said in relation to Union Minister Shobha Karandlaje's alleged remarks linking Rameshwaram Cafe bombers in Bengaluru to Tamil Nadu.

Justice G Jayachadran made the oral remarks while hearing the petition filed by the Minister to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her.

The allegation against Shobha is that in March 2024, after the blasts in Rameshwaram café, she allegedly said, “People trained in Tamil Nadu plant bombs here. Bomb was planted at the hotel.” Following this, one Thiagarajan, a resident of Madurai, lodged a complaint stating that the alleged remark was intended to create enmity and hatred among Tamils and Kannadigas.