- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Madras High Court
- /
- Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 1 to July 7, 2024
Upasana Sajeev
8 July 2024 12:00 PM IST
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 266 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 271 NOMINAL INDEX K Nizamuddin v The Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 266Balakrishna Reddy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 267Mr.P.N.Vignesh v The Chairman and Members of the Bar Council, BCI, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 268M/s.Practo Technologies Pvt.Ltd v The Tamil Nadu Chemists and...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 266 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
NOMINAL INDEX
K Nizamuddin v The Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
Balakrishna Reddy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
Mr.P.N.Vignesh v The Chairman and Members of the Bar Council, BCI, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
M/s.Practo Technologies Pvt.Ltd v The Tamil Nadu Chemists and Druggists Association and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
T.S.Jawahar Ali Khan v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
Porkodi v State and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
REPORT
Case Title: K Nizamuddin v The Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
The Madras High Court recently closed a public interest litigation seeking to frame standard operating procedures for preserving, protecting and maintaining the CCTV footages inside police stations and ensuring its availability to prevent possible human rights violation.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq closed the plea after considering the State's plea that CCTV cameras have been installed in almost 99% of the police stations and steps have been taken to preserve the footage for a period of 18 months.
Case Title: Balakrishna Reddy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
The Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside the conviction and sentence imposed om former Tamil Nadu Minister Balakrishna Reddy.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that there were several lacunas in the prosecution case and the benefit had to be given to the appellant (Balakrishnan). The orders were passed on appeals preferred by Reddy and others challenging his conviction.
In January 2019, a special court had convicted Reddy to 3 year imprisonment in a 1998 arson case in connection with a protest against illicit liquor. Over 150 villagers had gathered in front of Bagalur Police Station and protested against police inaction in removing illicit arrack units in the area. The special court had convicted Reddy after noting the damage to public property, and burning of police vehicles.
Case Title: Mr.P.N.Vignesh v The Chairman and Members of the Bar Council, BCI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
The Madras High Court has come down heavily on lawyers soliciting work through online websites in violation of Bar Council of India Rules. The court has asked the Bar Council of India to issue circulars/instructions/guidelines to State Bar Councils to initiate disciplinary proceedings against lawyers for advertising or soliciting their services directly or indirectly.
The court added that action should be taken against any form of advertising including furnishing newspaper comments, or producing photographs to be published in connection with cases, etc.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that the legal profession, unlike others, was not a job or a business and the intention was to provide welfare to the society. The court added that though a fee was paid to the lawyers, it was paid out of respect for their time and knowledge. The court added that providing ranking or customer ratings to lawyers demeaned the profession and was against dignity and integrity.
Case Title: M/s.Practo Technologies Pvt.Ltd v The Tamil Nadu Chemists and Druggists Association and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
The Madras High Court recently disposed of an appeal against an order of a single judge prohibiting the online sale of drugs and cosmetics.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan took note of the Government's submission that it was in the process of finalizing a new policy. The court directed the Union Government and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation to expedite and finalize the police and notify the same.
Till such time, the court ordered status quo on the condition that online sale of drugs must be made only through or by licensed Druggists and Chemists. The court directed the competent authorities to initiate appropriate action against the individual offenders in the manner known to the law. The court noted that the policy will have far-reaching consequences and the Government would have to consider various issues raised by the stakeholders.
Disciplinary Authority Must Record Reasons If Disagree With Enquiry Authority: Madras High Court
Case Title: T.S.Jawahar Ali Khan v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, while deciding a Writ Petition held that the disciplinary authority must record its reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry authority against an employee's dismissal.
Case Title: Porkodi v State and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
After a special hearing held on Sunday morning, the Madras High Court permitted the burial of late Bahujan Samaj Party Tamil Nadu chief Armstrong to be held at a private property in Pothur Village in Thiruvallur district in Tamil Nadu. The court also gave liberty to the petitioners to approach the authority if they intended to construct a memorial manimandapam, hospital, school etc in Armstrong's name.
Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan also asked all parties to co-operate with the government and conduct the burial procession in a peaceful manner. The court further directed the police to give appropriate police protection for the procession.
The court passed orders on petition filed by wife of late BSP leader K Armstrong seeking permission to bury his body in the party office at Chennai.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: ML Ravi v Secretary and Others
Case No: WP 17176 of 2024
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu police to file a status report on the action taken regarding the flinging of broomsticks by some women protestors when Youtuber Savukku Shankar was produced in courts.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq asked the police to file the status report by July 8, 2024. The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate ML Ravi seeking an inquiry by a retired judge of the High Court into the alleged protests and other details including who organized the protests, who brought the protestors to the court, and seeking to file an FIR against the protestors and organizers.
When the matter was taken up on Monday, the bench initially commented that the plea was merely a Publicity Interest Litigation. The State informed the court that the protesting mob was immediately dispersed and an inquiry was also conducted. The court then asked the state to file a status report on the inquiry.
Case Title: ML Ravi v Chief Election Commissioner and Another
Case No: WP 17216 of 2024
The Madras High Court has issued notices to the Election Commission of India and the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice in a plea challenging the proviso to Section 123(2) of the Representation of Peoples Act.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq issued notice on a plea filed by Advocate ML Ravi.
In his plea, Ravi submitted that the proviso was ultra vires and against the Preamble embedded in the Constitution of India. Ravi pointed out that a symbol is religious if it has a religious significance and does not always symbolize God. He gave an example of a case where a symbol of “Elephant” was allotted. He submitted that the symbol “Elephant” was a religious symbol as it depicted the Hindu God Ganapathy and was part of Hindu Religious Mythology. Ravi argued that if this symbol was allotted by the Election Commission, it would not amount to corrupt practice which was arbitrary, discriminatory and defeats the very purpose of enactment of the Act.
The Madras High Court on Monday took suo motu cognizance of the manufacture and sale of illicit arrack by the people in Kalvarayan hills.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that poverty and want of livelihood had forced men and women of the region to resort to the manufacture of illicit arrack. The court added that the issue had to be dealt with at the earliest and comprehensive measures be undertaken for the economic and social welfare of the people in the region.
While hearing a plea seeking to reopen a case related to police firing during the Thoothukudi Sterlite protests in which 13 people lost their lives, the Madras High Court today orally remarked that the police officers responsible for the firing should be prosecuted for the offence of murder.
Division Bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar lamented that even after all these years, the police officials have not shown any remorse.
Case Title: S Devadoss Gandhi Wilson v Additional Chief Secretary to Govt of TN and Others
Case No: WP 13324 of 2024
The Madras High Court on Tuesday told the State Government that police could take action against lawyers who were using Advocate Stickers to seek immunity from traffic offences.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq were hearing a plea seeking to implement court orders and Government press release and penalise those who misused the Motor Vehicles Act and used sun control films and stickers on the car windscreens, windshields, window panels etc.
The court remarked that the government should take efforts to implement the orders at the earliest and take strict action against anyone who disobeyed the law.
Case Title: B Ramkumar Adityan v Cabinet Secretary and Others
Case No: WP 17877 of 2024
The Union Government on Wednesday informed the Madras High Court that there was nothing unconstitutional in the Hindi names of the three new criminal laws. The response came in a plea seeking to declare the Hindi names of the new criminal laws as unconstitutional.
Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan informed the bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq that the parliament, in its own wisdom had named the new laws and unless these were shown to be inherently illegal/unconstitutional, they cannot be interfered with.
Case Title: IS Inbadurai v Chief Secretary
Case No: WP 16519 of 2024
The Tamil Nadu Government, on Wednesday informed the Madras High Court that it had acted diligently following the Kallakurichi hooch tragedy.
The state informed the bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq that the state had responded swiftly to the issue and taken every possible steps. The state added that investigation was rapidly progressing.
The state highlighted that cases cannot be transferred from the State to a Central Investigation Agency routinely but only in rare cases where the constitutional courts found the investigation to be insufficient. In the instant case, the State said that the incident was only two-week old and sufficient progress has been shown by the investigating agency. Thus, the State submitted that there were no circumstances which warranted a CBI inquiry.
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court Bar Association has decided to abstain from work and from attending courts on the 5th of July (Friday) as part of the opposition against the sudden implementation of the New Criminal Laws.
The resolution, issued by the General Secretary M Saravana Kumar states that the MMBA, in its general meeting held on 2nd July took the unanimous decision to register its opposition. The resolution also asked its members to adhere to the above.
Case Title: Mohamed Ghouse v The Chief Secretary and Others
Case No: WP 17851 of 2024
The Madras High Court on Friday asked the State government to reconsider its decision to pay a compensation of Rs. 10 Lakh to families of victims who lost their lives in the Kallakurichi Hooch Tragedy.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq opined that the amount was too high. The court also commented that the families should not be encouraged in cases of such nature. The court thus asked the State Government to reconsider the decision and find other mechanisms.
Former DMK Functionary Jaffer Sadiq Approaches Madras High Court Challenging Arrest In PMLA Case
Former DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq has approached the Madras High Court challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
When the matter was taken up by a bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan, the bench asked the Registry to number Jaffer's quashing petition and list it in due course.
