Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 03 to July 09

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 182 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 191

NOMINAL INDEX

Pastor Gideon Jacob v State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 182

A Ayyanar v The General Manager, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 183

Megala v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 184

Prasoon Mishra v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 185

Carunia Seelavathi v Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 186

S Kumar v The District Collector and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 187

Varaaki v The Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 188

P Milany v S Arumugam and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 189

B Manoharan v The Ministry of Culture, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 190

Amalraj v State and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 191

REPORTS

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.

Madras High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Bus Conductor Dismissed From Service For Non-Issuance Of Ticket, Having Excess 7 Rupees In Bag

Case Title: A Ayyanar v The General Manager

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 183

The Madras High Court recently directed the reinstatement of a Bus Conductor, Ayyanar, who was terminated from service for non-issuance of a bus ticket to a lady passenger and for having an excess of seven rupees with him.

Justice PB Balaji said that the order of termination from service was grossly disproportionate and criticized the action of the State Transport Department of relying on earlier proceedings against Ayyanar, even though they had been settled.

Madras High Court Delivers Split Verdict In Habeas Corpus Plea By Senthil Balaji's Family Against His Arrest By ED

Case Title: Megala v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 184

The Madras High Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict in the Habeas corpus plea filed by Megala, wife of Senthil Balaji against his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy said that the matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice for further orders.

Justice Nisha Banu observed that the Habeas Corpus petition is maintainable and that the Enforcement Directorate is not entrusted with the powers to seek police custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. She also dismissed the application filed by the Enforcement Directorate seeking to exclude the period of treatment undergone by Balaji while calculating the period for custodial interrogation.

Differing from this opinion, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the Habeas Corpus Petition is not maintainable. He observed that normally HCP is not maintainable unless it is shown that the arrest and detention is illegal. He added that in the present case, the petitioner had not made out a case to hold that the remand was illegal and thus the HCP was not maintainable.

Madras HC Asks Dainik Bhaskar Editor To Publish Corrigendum For Spreading Fake News On Alleged Attacks Against Migrant Workers, Grants Pre-Arrest Bail

Case Title: Prasoon Mishra v State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 185

Granting anticipatory bail to Prasoon Mishra, a News Editor of the Digital Division of Hindi Newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar”, in a case for allegedly spreading false and fake news on attacks against migrant workers in Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court directed him to publish a Corrigendum on the first page/home page of all publications stating that the news that they had published was fake, and was without verifying the truth.

Justice AD Jagadish Chandira also deprecated the practice of publishing a sensitive news without verifying the correctness or understanding the sensitivity of the matter.

The court also emphasised that media, which was the fourth pillar of democracy, carries a huge responsibility and has to adopt their professional ethics and must take care of public interest instead of concentrating on sensational news alone.

Madras High Court Directs Authorities To Exempt Vehicle Tax, GST For Car Purchased By Visually Challenged Person

Case Title: Carunia Seelavathi v Secretary to Government and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 186

The Madras High Court recently directed authorities to grant exemption from the motor vehicle tax as well as the GST to a visually impaired person in respect of the car purchased by her.

Justice PT Asha of the Madurai bench took note of the recommendations made by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to Department of Heavy Industries, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises and Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance for amendments to their rules to give concession with reference to GST, Road Tax, Toll Tax etc to the visually challenged persons.

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.

Manhandling Of IT Officials During Minister’s Arrest Not An ‘Internal Disturbance’; Court Can’t Direct Centre To Invoke Article 355: Madras High Court

Case Title: Varaaki v The Secretary and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 188

Dismissing a plea seeking its intervention to invoke Article 355 and Article 352 of the Constitution in the backdrop of Tamil Nadu minister Senthil Balaji's arrest and the alleged manhandling of Income Tax officials during the search, the Madras High Court ruled that the High Court under Article 226 does not have the power to issue directions to the Centre to invoke Article 355, as it is a part of the policy decision on the part of the Executive.

The division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu said any such direction would also be in violation of the theory of separation of power. "Moreover, in our opinion the current set of facts as explained before do not fall under the ambit of 'internal disturbance'," said the court.

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.

Merely Because A Tomb Has Been In Existence For More Than 100 Years Not A Ground To Declare It As Protected Monument: Madras High Court

Case Title: B Manoharan v The Ministry of Culture

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 190

While ordering relocation of the tomb of David Yale and Joseph Hymners from the Madras Law College compound, located within the court premises, to any other appropriate place, the Madras High Court noted that merely because the tomb has been in existence for more than 100 years can not be the sole reason to declare it as a protected monument under Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958.

Justice M Dhandapani was dealing with a plea seeking removal or relocation of the Tomb of David Yale and Joseph Hymners situated in the compound of Law College within the Madras High Court campus.

The court noted that for a monument to be of national importance two conditions are to be fulfilled – firstly, the structure should be of historical, archaeological or artistic interest and secondly that the said structure should have been in existence for not less than 100 years.

Police Can Register FIR For Non-Payment Of Maintenance As It Amounts To Economic Abuse, Breach Of Protection Order Under DV Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: Amalraj v State and Another

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 191

The Madras High Court has ruled that non-payment of maintenance amount is a breach of protection order under Section 18 of the Act and registration of an FIR on that ground is lawful.

Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai bench observed that Section 31 of the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act was enacted to ensure social justice and to regulate the violator of a protection order. The court called the provision a life-saving medicine by treating failure of remittance of maintenance as an offence and crime.

The court also disagreed with a reasoning of the Kerala High Court that such wide interpretation of Section 31 would lead to over-flooding of courts, and opined that flooding of courts would only signify that the people have faith in the judiciary which is a good sign for the judiciary.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Madras High Court Stays Single Bench’s Judgment On Madras Bar Association’s Eligibility Criteria For Membership

Case Title: The Secretary v Elephant G Rajendran and others

Case No: WA 1354 of 2023

The Madras High Court has stayed the operation of an order directing the Madras Bar Association to distribute membership applications to all interested lawyers practicing in the High Court and admit them without any discrimination "on the basis of caste, gender, religion, economic status, personal affiliations with Senior Advocates or dignitaries and political affiliations without reference to the draconian Bye-Laws regarding eligibility criteria to become the member of the Madras Bar Association or by amending the Bye-Laws suitably."

When an appeal preferred by the Association against the order of the single-judge came up for admission, the division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice K Rajasekar said the single judge ought to have referred the matter to a division bench as all the matters in which the Registrar General is made a party are to be heard by a division bench as per the Madras High Court Writ Rules 2021.

Prohibition Against Online Gambling: Madras High Court Refuses Interim Relief To Gaming Companies, To Hear Case On July 13

Case Title: All India Gaming Federation v State and others

Case No: WP 13203 of 2023

The Madras High Court has refused to grant any interim relief to Online Gaming companies in their challenge against the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation Of Online Games Act 2022.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that since the arguments for interim relief and the final relief are the same, the matter can be heard and decided in finality.

Madras High Court Makes E-Filing Mandatory For District Courts Dealing With Cheque Bounce Cases

The Madras High Court has made e-filing mandatory in District Courts dealing with cases arising under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

A notification in this regard was issued by the Registrar General (in charge) M Jothiraman on July 3 informing the advocates, parties-in-person that the e-filing can be done through the e-filing portal developed by the e-Committee, Supreme Court of India which will commence on July 07.

Madras High Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Release Of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Convict Srikaran From Foreigners Detention Centre

Case Title: S Nalini v The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer Chennai and others

Case No: WP 19842 of 2023

The Madras High Court has issued notices to the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, the Secretary of Public (Foreigners) Department, and the Tiruchirappalli District Collector on a plea filed by S Nalini, convict in Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case, for release of her husband Srikaran, a co-convict, from the Foreigners Detention Centre in Tiruchirappalli.

Justice N Seshasayee issued notice to the respondent authorities returnable by six weeks.

Senthil Balaji Case: Madras High Court Frames Points Of Difference In Split Verdict, To Hear Arguments On July 11

Justice CV Karthikeyan of the Madras High Court on Friday framed the points of difference of opinion in the split verdict delivered by a division bench of the Court on July 4th in the habeas corpus petition filed by Megala, wife of Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji against his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate on June 14, in a money laundering case under PMLA.

Justice Karthikeyan took up the plea following a letter by the Chief Justice to resolve the split verdict. On July 4th, a bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy gave a split verdict in the case with Justice Banu observing that the petition was maintainable and that ED was not entitled to seek police custody, and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy ruling that Balaji's arrest did not amount to illegal detention.