Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 22 - July 28, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

Sapphire Foods India Ltd v The Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 286

Raja Murrugan v Superintendent of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 287

The Chief Revenue Controlling Authority Chennai Versus R.Muniyandi, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 288

Karthikeyan and Others v Thangapandian, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 289

Arulraj and another v The Inspector of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 290

REPORT

"License Suspended Straightaway Without Issuing Improvement Notice": Madras High Court Stays Suspension Of KFC Operator's License In Thoothukudi

Case Title: Sapphire Foods India Ltd v The Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 286

The Madras High Court has stayed an order passed by the Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department suspending the license of Sapphire Foods India Ltd, operators of the fast-food chain KFC in Thoothukudi.

Justice GR Swaminathan agreed with the petitioners and observed that the order was liable to be dealt with on several grounds. The court noted that as per the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, the authorities were to first issue an improvement notice and in case of non-compliance, could suspend the license. In the present case, the court noted that the authorities had straightaway suspended the license in the first instance.

Shocking That Lawyer Is Seeking Protection To Run Brothel: Madras HC Asks State Bar Council To Ensure Members Are Enrolled From 'Reputed Institutions'

Case Title: Raja Murrugan v Superintendent of Police

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 287

Expressing shock over a lawyer seeking protection for running a brothel center, the Madras High Court has asked the state bar council to ensure that members are enrolled only from reputed institutions and restrict the enrolment from unreputed institutions from Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and other states.

Justice B Pugalendhi observed that it was high time the bar council realised that the reputation of advocates was decreasing in the society. The court added that it was unfortunate that the brother service business was being done by a person claiming to be an advocate from the Kanyakumari District which is known for being 100% literate.

Interest Can't Be Demanded When Entire Stamp Duty Paid During Pendency Of Appeal: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Chief Revenue Controlling Authority Chennai Versus R.Muniyandi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 288

The Madras High Court has held that interest cannot be demanded when the entire amount as demanded by the authorities has been paid even during the pendency of the appeal.

The bench of Justice R. Vijayakumar has observed that the present appeal has been filed under Section 47-A(10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Only after orders are passed by the Court will the liability get fastened upon the purchaser to pay interest on the belated payment. The entire amount as demanded by the authorities has been paid even during the pendency of the appeal. The interest cannot be demanded because the belated payment does not arise.

No Prior Sanction Needed To Prosecute Officers Below Rank Of Inspector, Article 14 Cannot Be Applied Against Administrative Hierarchy: Madras HC

Case Title: Karthikeyan and Others v Thangapandian

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 289

The Madras High Court has made it clear that no prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is needed to prosecute police officers below the rank of Inspector of Police.

The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice K Rajasekar observed that though Article 14 of the Constitution guaranteed the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, it could not be misconstrued to apply against the hierarchies in the administrative aspects.

The court was answering a reference made to it on whether the term “removable by government” could be interpreted in a broad perspective to include police officers from the rank of Constable to Inspector of Police.

The court noted that the legislation, in its wisdom, had restricted the scope and application of the provision with a reasonable differentia. The court added that if the word “any person” in Article 14 of the Constitution was assumed to have exempted and excluded classification and restriction in all enactments, no statute with any reasonable differentia could ever be implemented.

Madras High Court Laments Political Favours Preventing Police From Acting Against Voter Bribery In Elections

Case Title: Arulraj and another v The Inspector of Police and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 290

The Madras High Court recently criticized the police force for not acting appropriately in cases involving bribery during elections. The court remarked that though the police were the only machinery that could act against such offenses, in many cases, the police were taking sides and not prosecuting expecting favors from political parties.

Justice B Pugalendhi further observed that bribing voters during an election was not just an offense against an individual but an offense against society. The court added that such bribing destroys the very basis of democracy. The court also remarked that since the police were not acting against the offenders, people ended up committing subsequent offence.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Plea In Madras High Court Seeks Regulation Of YouTube To Bring It In Conformity With Indian Laws, Social And Religious Restrictions

Case Title: V Parthiban v The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case No: WP 19540 of 2024

A Public interest litigation has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking to regulate and restrict the functioning of YouTube and bring it in conformity with Indian laws, and social and religious restrictions including forming a regulatory or advisory committee.

When the matter was taken up, the bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu said that they wanted to know the Centre's stand on the petition. However, on noting that neither the Central Government nor YouTube was a party to the proceeding, the court asked the petitioner to implead them and adjourned the case by a week.

Kallakurichi Hooch Tragedy |Request Either CM Or Other Ministers To Visit Kalvarayan Hills, Practically See Plight Of People: Madras High Court

Case Title: Suo Motu Writ Petition v The Chief Secretary

Case No: WP 19030 of 2024

The Madras High Court on Wednesday remarked that the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu MK Stalin, Sports Development and Youth Welfare Minister Udayanidhi Stalin, and Adi Dravidar Welfare Minister N Kayalvizhi Selvaraj should visit the Kalvarayan hills and ascertain the situation prevailing in the area and the complaints of producing spurious liquor.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan asked the Advocate General PS Raman to apprise the Ministers and inform them about the court's request.

Usage Of The Term "Tribal" In School's Name Is Unwarranted, Results In Stigmatisation Of Children: Madras High Court

Case Title: Suo Motu Writ Petition v The Chief Secretary

Case No: WP 19030 of 2024

The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu to initiate appropriate action and remove prefixes like “Tribal” from the names of the Government Schools in the state.

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan, while hearing the suo motu petition initiated in the wake of the Kallakurichi Hooch Tragedy, noted that the Government schools in the locality were in the name of “Government Tribal Residential School”. The court observed that usage of the term “Tribal” was unwanted and would stigmatize the children studying in the school.

Madras High Court Judges Recuse From Hearing Savukku Shankar Habeas Corpus Plea Citing His Mother's "Unwarranted" Remarks About Proceedings

Case Title: A Kamala v State

Case No: HCP No. 1163 of 2024

The Madras High Court bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan have recused from hearing the habeas corpus plea filed by A Kamala, mother of Youtuber and whistleblower 'Savukku' Shankar challenging his detention under the TN Preventive Detention Act.

The bench said that Kamala, in a petition seeking to transfer the HCP to the Supreme Court or any court of competent jurisdiction, had made 'unwarranted' remarks about the court proceedings. Therefore, the court opined that it would not be appropriate for the bench to continue hearing the matter.