Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 3 to December 10, 2023
Upasana Sajeev
11 Dec 2023 10:53 AM IST
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 380 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 388 NOMINAL INDEX S Muthu Kumar v The Cabinet Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 380 M Palani v The State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 381 All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Another v All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 380 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
NOMINAL INDEX
S Muthu Kumar v The Cabinet Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
M Palani v The State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Another v All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
S Jagathrakshakan and Others v The Special Director, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
K Krishna and Another v The Managing Director and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
P.Maheswari v The Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
S. Panneerselvam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
State v RS Rajesh, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
Thol Thirumaavalan v The Principal Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
REPORT
Case Title: S Muthu Kumar v The Cabinet Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
The Government of Tamil Nadu recently informed the Madras High Court of the various schemes implemented in the State in compliance with the judgment of the Apex Court in National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India.
The submissions were made before the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice KK Ramakrishnan in response to a plea seeking the authorities to implement the NALSA judgment.
In its counter affidavit, the State informed the court that the Government has initiated many innovative steps for the welfare of the Third Gender such as Mobile Apps, Awards, Training programs etc. It was informed that the mobile app, created at a cost of ten lakh rupees was inclusive of information, education and communication activities for the welfare of the persons belonging to the third gender.
Case Title: M Palani v The State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
The Madras High Court recently observed that the orders passed under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are purely administrative in nature and cannot be challenged unless they are apparently illegal and passed without any application of mind.
Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench dismissed a plea preferred by an accused seeking for transfer of his trial from one court to another, upon court pointing out that the impugned order was one passed by the Principal Sessions Judge in the ordinary course of business and there was no reason to interfere with the same.
Madras High Court Rejects VK Sasikala's Plea Against Removal From Post Of AIADMK General Secretary
Case Title: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Another v All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
The Madras High Court rejected an appeal preferred by VK Sasikala against an order upholding her removal as AIADMK General Secretary.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice N Senthilkumar rejected Sasikala's appeal to be recognised as the interim General Secretary of the party.
Sasikala was appointed as the interim General Secretary of the party in December 2016, after the death of former Chief Minister and then General Secretary of the party J Jayalalitha. However, following her conviction and imprisonment in February 2017 in a disproportionate assets case, disputes arose in the party.
Following this, a general council meeting was held and the council decided to remove Sasikala as the interim General Secretary of the party. The council instead created two new posts- Coordinator and Joint Coordinator and appointed O Paneerselvam and Edappadi K Palaniswami to these posts respectively.
Case Title: S Jagathrakshakan and Others v The Special Director
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea by DMK MP S. Jagathrakshakan challenging the proceedings initiated against him and his family under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ("FEMA").
Justice N Seshasayee observed that the objections raised by Jagathrakshakan could not be considered at the present stage, and allowed taking of all the defenses before the Adjudicating authority.
The allegation against Jagathrakshakan (and other petitioners) was that he had subscribed to 70 lakh shares in a Singapore-based company and later transferred those shares to his wife and two children outside India in violation of Section 4 of FEMA. Following this, the Authorised Officer (Adjudicating Authority of ED) moved the Commissioner of Customs under Section 37A of the Act for seizure of Jagathrakshakan's assets.
Case Title: K Krishna and Another v The Managing Director and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
In a significant move, the Madras High Court has asked the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to treat AYUSH treatments on par with Allopathy treatments while reimbursing expenses incurred during treatment.
Stressing the work done by AYUSH doctors during the pandemic, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that during COVID-19, traditional medicines were being recommended for infected persons and effective treatment was given under AYUSH, which provided relief to many patients.
The court thus opined that it was not reasonable to deprive policyholders of getting reimbursement for the amount spent on availing AYUSH treatments under their medical insurance.
Case Title: P.Maheswari v The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
The Madras High Court recently observed that granting of a community certificate or its cancellation would have larger repercussions as it would affect the future generations of the family concerned and as such the authorities are expected to be more cautious while granting the certificate.
In setting aside the cancellation of the petitioner's community certificate, a bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayanan stressed that the authorities must go through every document carefully and remove ambiguity as any ambiguity would result in the denial of the basic right of the person seeking the community certificate.
Case Title: S. Panneerselvam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by some building owners challenging decision of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited ("TASMAC") to close 500 TASMAC shops being operated in their leased-out properties.
Questioning the petitioners' locus standi, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that they were not the right persons to challenge the government decision and though the pleas were filed in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, the motive seemed to be to achieve personal interest.
Case Title: State v RS Rajesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
While dealing with a case relating to the unauthorized dumping of bio-medical waste from Kerala to Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court recently noted that suitable amendments needed to be brought into the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 (Preventive Detention Act) so that those violating the provisions of the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules 2016, are covered under the definition of “Goondas” under the Act.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai bench was informed that the Advocate General had given a positive opinion to bring the violators under the Detention Act for strict action to be taken against them. Noting that the steps taken by the government were appreciable, the court added that the state was expected to take necessary steps to bring suitable amendments to the Act.
The court was hearing a revision petition filed by the State challenging an order of the Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam, allowing interim custody of a vehicle involved in dumping of medical waste.
Case Title: Thol Thirumaavalan v The Principal Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
The Madras High Court has held that while appointing Law Officers to the High Court and its Madurai Bench, merit should be the sole consideration, without any scope for reservation- vertical or horizontal.
In dismissing the pleas, a bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the appointment of Law Officers by the government was not a civil post and the officers were not employees of the Government. Thus, while selecting law officers, the Government had to select the most competent, capable, and meritorious lawyers to represent them as Law Officers.
The court noted that the government, being the custodian of public interest was obligated to protect the public interest to the optimum extent and in the best possible manner. To fulfill this duty, the Government was mandated to engage the best officers based on 'merit.'
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Madras High Court has impleaded the Registrar General in the suo motu revision petition taken up against the acquittal of TN Minister K Ponmudi and his wife in a disproportionate assets case.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that since the single judge had questioned the procedure adopted in transferring the case to a different Court which was essentially an administrative order, the Registrar General was a necessary party.
Justice Jayachandran agreed with Senior Advocate NR Elango appearing for Ponmudi and observed that the transfer order passed by the High Court transferring the trail from Villupuram to Vellore was essentially an order passed on the administrative side of the High Court. Thus, noting that the Registrar General was a necessary party the court impleaded the Registrar General and asked him to reply to the plea by December 12. The court also allowed Ponmudi's plea to get a copy of the response of the Judicial Officer noting that the same was necessary for Ponmudi to represent effectively.
Actor Mansoor Ali Khan has approached the Madras High Court seeking damages from Actors Trisha Krishnan, Kushboo Sundar, and Chiranjeevi Konidela for alleged defamatory statements made against the former in social media platform “X” (formerly Twitter).
While talking to the media following the success of the movie “Leo”, Mansoor made certain remarks about his co-actor Trisha. His comments were widely criticised as misogynistic and disrespectful. Trisha also commented on social media expressing her displeasure and condemned Khan's statements. Khan also made a public apology for his statements which was also accepted by Trisha.
Following this, Khan has now approached the Madras High Court saying that the defendant actors had made defamatory statements in public without properly verifying or ascertaining the truth. Khan also submitted that he had merely commented about the negative characters that he had played and not made personal comments.
