Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 24 to June 30, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

Felix Jerald v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 256

Indian Institute of Technology v The Controller of Patents & Designs, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 257

Rahul Gandhi v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 258

Gokul Abhimanyu v Union of India and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 259

B Anantha Lakshmi and Another v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 260

S Shanmugasundaram v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 261

Dr. TV Swaminathan v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 262

S Chandan Babu v Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 263

M/s. SRM Hotels Private Limited v The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 264

Tvl. Shivam Steels Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 265

REPORT

Journalists Should Conduct Themselves With Dignity: Madras High Court Refuses Bail To YouTuber Felix Jerald In Savukku Shankar Case

Case Title: Felix Jerald v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 256

The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed the bail petition filed by Youtuber Felix Jerald in a case relating to the interview of Savukku Shankar in which Savukku made derogatory remarks against women police officers.

Justice TV Thamilselvi agreed with the prosecution that by interviewing Shankar, Jerald had provided a platform to the latter, to make such objectionable statements. The judge also pointed out that being a journalist, Jerald was expected to behave in a dignified manner and he could have edited out the derogatory portions of the interview before making it public.

Lacks Inventive Step: Madras High Court Denies Patent To IIT-Madras' Method Of Doping Potassium In Ammonium Perchlorate

Case Title: Indian Institute of Technology v The Controller of Patents & Designs

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 257

The Madras High Court has affirmed an order passed by the Controller of Patents & designs rejecting the patent application filed by Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras's method of doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that there was no experimental data to show that the method had an economic significance. Further, the court also noted that the claimed invention lacked an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.

The court noted that the invention merely employed dissolution, filtration, heating, drying and reheating and the resultant product was also a mere variant of an already existing product. Thus, noting that a new reactant was not used while adopting the known process, the court conclude that the claimed invention was excluded from patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.

[False Promise To Marry] Court Must Ensure That Not Only Are 'Women Not Misused, But Equally That Law Is Not Misused Against Men': Madras HC

Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 258

While setting aside a conviction in a sexual harassment case, the Madras High Court recently observed that when the victim already knew that the accused was a married man and father of a child, she could not allege that the consent was obtained on a false promise of marriage.

Justice M Dhandapani observed that while dealing with cases of such nature, the courts had a two-fold duty- firstly to see that women are not misused and secondly and equally that the law is not misused against the male folk. The court noted that though the courts had to give a soft touch to the evidence of the victims on the premise that women would not be the aggressors against males, it was also important to note that no innocent male was subjected to the vagaries of the women folk.

No Legal Right, Can't Say Fee Is Exorbitant: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Reduce Application Fee For AIBE

Case Title: Gokul Abhimanyu v Union of India and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 259

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking to reduce the application fee for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) conducted by the Bar Council of India.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice GR Swaminathan observed that unlike the enrolment fee prescribed under the Advocates Act, there was no statutory provision relating to the examination fee for the All India Bar Examination. In such a situation, the court noted that there was no legal right, for which a mandamus could be issued.

The court further noted that even in cases where there was no legal right, the court could interfere if it opined that the quantum of fee was exorbitant. In the present case however, the court noted that the application fee was Rs. 3,500/- which could not be called exorbitant.

No Person Should Be Denied Quality Medical Treatment On Economic Ground, State's Duty To Cater Heath Needs Of All: Madras High Court

Case Title: B Anantha Lakshmi and Another v State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 260

While dealing with a case relating to the bond period of PG Doctors, the Madras High Court stressed that a poor person, who is unable to afford paid treatment should not be treated differently.

The court added that while all medical services could not be rendered free of cost to the citizens, the goal of a welfare state must be to move towards affordable and easily accessible healthcare to all of its citizens.

Justice SM Subramaniam added that the postgraduate doctors' plea to count services rendered during the COVID-19 period under their bond policy was unsustainable. The court noted that during such an immense crisis, individuals from different wings of the government came forward and rendered invaluable services and to use this period of selfless service as a way of out-of-bond police was unjustifiable and unacceptable.

Madras High Court Permits Voter To Seek Records Of Disproportionate Assets Case Acquitting Social Welfare Minister Geetha Jeevan

Case Title: S Shanmugasundaram v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 261

The Madras High Court recently allowed a man to file a copy application seeking copies of a disproportionate asset case involving a politician which ended in the acquittal of the public servant. The man had sought copies of a case in which P Geetha Jeevan, the Minister for Social Welfare and Women Empowerment in Tamil Nadu was acquitted.

Justice G Jayachandran noted that when the case involved misconduct by a public servant who was elected in a democratic process, the voters should not be prevented from perusing the records and arriving at a conclusion on whether his representative was falsely prosecuted or had gained un-meritorious acquittal.

Campus Violence By Teachers Is A Very Serious Matter, Cannot Be Condoned By Receiving An Apology Letter: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dr. TV Swaminathan v State and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 262

The Madras High Court recently observed that teachers protesting in colleges violently was a serious matter that could not be condoned merely by receiving an apology letter.

Justice G Jayachandran thus dismissed a petition seeking to quash a criminal case registered against the teaching staff of Pachaiyappa's Trust for protesting. The court added that bypassing the criminal law procedures by obtaining an apology letter for an act of violence inside the college campus was not in the interest of justice.

Madras High Court Directs TN Bar Council To Facilitate Elections For Egmore Court Advocate's Association

Case Title: S Chandan Babu v Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 263

The Madras High Court recently directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to facilitate elections to the Efmore Court Advocate's Association (ECAA).

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan directed the State Bar Council to appoint an Election Commissioner and the required number of officers to assist the election commissioner in peacefully conducting the election as per the existing approved byelaws of ECAA. The court noted that the Bar Council was bound to take responsibility for conducting peaceful elections to the recognized bar associations and take appropriate disciplinary action in case of any unruly behavior.

The court also directed the Commissioner of Police to provide necessary police protection for the smooth conduct of the elections in the Association premises.

Govt Staff & Institutions Not Suited For Hospitality Industry As It Demands Courteous Treatment & Quick Responses For Customers: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. SRM Hotels Private Limited v The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 264

While setting aside the State Government's letter rejecting to renew a lease to SRM Hotels Private Limited, the Madras High Court observed that though the State claimed that the hotel could be managed by the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation (TTDC), the Government staff and institutions were not suited for the hospitality industry which required courteous treatment from the staff.

Justice GR Swaminathan observed that one of the reasons for disinvestment and outsourcing in the hospitality industry was the State's inability to manage the industry. The court added that certain businesses should be run by private persons.

Tax Demand on Post Sale Discounts Received By Way Of Financial Credit Notes Not Tenable: Madras High Court

Case Title: Tvl. Shivam Steels Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 265

The Madras High Court has quashed the order imposing tax demands on post-sale discounts received by way of financial credit notes on the ground that receiving a discount is not tenable in law.

The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that the assessing officer concluded that the taxable person is providing a service to the supplier while taking advantage of a discount by facilitating an increase in the volume of sales of such supplier. This conclusion is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the fundamental tenets of GST law.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Plea In Madras High Court Seeks Constitution Of Special Bench For Faster Disposal Of Cases Against Public Spirited Persons, Journalists & Youtubers

Case Title: S Muralidharan v High Court of Madras and Others

Case No: WP 15921 of 2024

A petition has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking constitution of special benches for faster disposal of cases against Public Spirited persons, Journalists, and YouTubers.

When the case came up before the bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, the bench directed the petitioner to give detailed statistics of the number of cases pending against such persons before the High Court and also directed the respondents to respond to the plea.

The petitioner, S Muralidharan, alleged that the ruling disposition in the State was engaging in a "witch-hunt" against any journalists/YouTubers and filing cases against them whenever a dissenting voice was raised. He contended that the fourth pillar of democracy needed to be protected and any type of gagging needed to be prevented. He further argued that the State was engaging in "vendetta politics" by filing cases against the dissenting voices.

Madras High Court Issues Notice On Plea To Remove 'Sai Baba Idols' From Hindu Temples Under HR & CE Department

Case Title: D Suresh Babu v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others

Case No: WP 16526 of 2024

The Madras High Court has issued notice to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department on a plea seeking to remove the idols of Godman Sai Baba from all Hindu temples either directly or indirectly under the control of the department.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq issued notice to the HR&CE.

The petition was filed by D Sureshbabu, a resident of Coimbatore. In his plea, Suresh Babu argued that Sai Mandirs/Temples were not exclusively a place of Hindu Public Religious worship and keeping his idol in the temple was against the Agama principles.

Madras High Court Grants Four More Months To Complete Trial In Money Laundering Case Against Former TN Minister Senthil Balaji

Case Title: Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director

Case No: Crl OP 1525 of 2024

The Madras High Court on Wednesday granted four more months to the Chennai Principal and Sessions Court to complete trial in the money laundering case initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji.

In February this year, while dismissing the bail application of Balaji, Justice Anand Venkatesh had asked the trial court to complete the trial in three months since Balaji was already in incarceration since June 2023.

Justice Jayachandran today extended this time by four months after the Principal Sessions Judge expressed inability to complete the trial. Writing to the High Court registry, the Judge informed that after the High Court order, the parties were filing multiple petitions and thus the trial could not be completed within the stipulated time.

Madras High Court Asks State To Release ₹7 Crore Towards TN Advocates Welfare Fund, Asks For Money To Be Disbursed To Families Of Deceased Lawyers

Case Title: Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government and Others

Case No: WP 17976 of 2019

The Madras High Court has directed the Principal Secretary to the Government, the Finance Department to release Rs 7 Crore towards the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Trust. The Court also asked the Advocate general, who is the Chairman of the Trust to disburse the admissible amount to the beneficiaries of deceased Advocates.

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan were hearing a plea to implement and enforce The Advocates' Welfare Fund Act 2001 to Puducherry Union Territory. In previous orders, the court had directed all Advocates/Senior Advocates in the state to give a stipend of Rs. 15k- Rs 20k to young lawyers in the state.

BJP Minister Shobha Karandlaje Approaches Madras HC To Quash FIR Over Allegedly Offensive Comments Against TN In Aftermath Of Rameshwaram Café Blast

Minister of State for the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shobha Karandlaje has approached the Madras High Court to quash the criminal proceedings that were initiated against her for alleged comments against Tamil Nadu in the aftermath of blasts in Rameswaram Café, Bengaluru.

The Allegation against Shobha was that in March 2024, after the blasts in Rameshwaram café, she had allegedly remarked “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. Following the complaint, Shobha was charged with Sections 153, 153(A), 505(1)(b) and 505(2) of the IPC. Another FIR was also registered in Chickpet Police Station, Bengaluru for the same offence.

In her petition, which is yet to be numbered, Shobha submitted that the FIRs reeks of malice, ulterior motive, political motive and abuse of process. She added that her intention was only to raise her concerns about the internal security in Tamil Nadu. She added that she also retracted her remarks clarifying her intentions and apologising for the statements.