Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 8 to January 14, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 9 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 20

NOMINAL INDEX

G.Shanugam v. Tmt.P.Amudha, I.A.S, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 9

Annavelu v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 10

Rajesh Das IPS v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 11

BNY Mellon Technology Private Limited Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 12

Murasoli Trust v National Commission For Scheduled Castes, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 13

S Paul Kithiyon v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 14

O Panneerselvam v Edappadi K Palaniswami, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 15

ML Ravi v Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 16

S Harish v Inspector of Police and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 17

Apsara Reddy v Joe Micheal Praveen, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 18

P Gunasekaran v The Deputy Inspector General (Prison), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 19

Dr P Perumalsamy v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 20

REPORT

Men In Power Shouldn't Prevent Citizens' Right Of Thought And Expression: Madras High Court Lays Down Guidelines For Future RSS March

Case Title: G.Shanugam v. Tmt.P.Amudha, I.A.S

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 9

While issuing guidelines to the Police and the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) for permitting and holding route marches in the future, the Madras High Court commented that men in power should not attempt to prevent an individual's right of thought and expression.

Justice G Jayachandran also added that men in power should not be biased while permitting citizens to express their views and any restriction must pass the test of reasonable restriction.

Democratic Right To Raise Voice Against Govt Demanding Legal Action, Cannot Be Construed Unlawful Or Illegal: Madras High Court

Case Title: Annavelu v State and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 10

Quashing a criminal case registered against a man for conducting a demonstration against the arrest of DMK Youth Wing Secretary, the Madras High Court observed that every person had a democratic right to raise his voice against the government demanding legal action and when such a right was exercised, it could not be said to be “unlawful” or “illegal”

Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench observed,

“The petitioner along with others simply made agitation. It is a democratic right of every person to raise voice against the political or Government demanding legal action. Such a right has been exercised by the petitioner. So, that cannot be construed as 'unlawful or illegal',” the court observed.

High Court Dismisses Plea By Former Tamil Nadu DGP To Transfer Appeal In Sexual Harassment Case To Another Court

Case Title: Rajesh Das IPS v. State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 11

The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by former Tamil Nadu DGP Rajesh Das seeking to transfer an appeal against his conviction from the Villupuram Principal District Court to any other court.

Justice Anand Venkatesh dismissed the plea and observed that there was no prima facie materials to order a transfer. The court also directed the lower appellate court to complete the hearing in the appeal by January 24th, 2024 and pass orders on merit as expeditiously as possible.

The court noted that no grounds raised by Das warranted transfer of the case and in fact Das, in his own accord was trying to create an impression that there was reasonable apprehension.

Reopening Of Assessment Inspired From 'Review' & 'Change Of Opinion' By Subsequent AO Is Deprecated: Madras HC

Case Title: BNY Mellon Technology Private Limited Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 12

While setting aside the order disposing of assessee's objection for re-opening of assessment pursuant to the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and the consequent reassessment order, the Madras High Court held that there is no scope for re-opening of the assessment, since the reasons cited for same was inspired from change of opinion of the Assessing officer.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice C. Saravanan observed that “there is no case made out for reopening the Assessment that was completed earlier. Reopening of the Assessment was inspired from a review and a change of opinion by the subsequent officer. Such practice has been deprecated and frowned upon by the Courts” (Para 35)

“Unnecessary Act Of Haste”: Madras High Court Dismisses Murasoli Trust's Plea Against Inquiry By National Commission For Scheduled Caste

Case Title: Murasoli Trust v National Commission For Scheduled Castes

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 13

While dismissing a petition filed by Murasoli Trust challenging a notice issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Caste, the Madras High Court called the trust's action unnecessary and uncalled for as the commission was acting within its jurisdiction.

Justice SM Subramaniam noted that the National Commission for Scheduled Caste was a constitutional body for the benefit of the socially disadvantaged group in the country. The court added that NCSC has all the powers of a civil court including the powers to summon, receiving evidence, requisitioning public records, issue commissions, and other powers stipulated under the Constitution. Thus, the court observed that the commission had only acted within its power when it received a complaint about the deprivation of the legal right of the Scheduled caste members.

After Madras High Court Nudge, Trade Unions Decide To Defer Bus Strike; Court Says Welfare Of People Supreme Law

Case Title: S Paul Kithiyon v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 14

In a plea seeking to declare the transport strike called by different trade unions in the state of Tamil Nadu as illegal and unconstitutional, the Trade Unions, on Wednesday informed the court of their willingness to call off the strike in larger public interest and given the Pongal festival.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy invoked the principle of Salus Populi Suprema Lex and observed that welfare of people was to be given utmost importance. Considering the immense hardship that the general public will have to face in the absence of an essential service like Transport, especially during Pongal, which was the largest festival in the State, the court expected the trade unions to rise to the occasion and call off the strike at least till the next conciliation proceedings.

Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Interim Order Restraining O Panneerselvam From Using AIADMK Party Name, Flag, Symbol

Case Title: O Panneerselvam v Edappadi K Palaniswami

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 15

A Division bench of the Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an interim order of a single judge restraining former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and expelled AIADMK leader O Paneerselvam from using the party's name, flag, symbol, and letterhead.

The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that there were no grounds to interfere with the order of the single judge and dismissed Panneerselvam's appeal. The court said that Paneerselvam could approach the single judge to vacate the interim injunction order.

In November last year, Justice N Satish Kumar allowed the plea for interim injunction filed by the party General Secretary Edappadi Palaniswami. Edappadi had approached the court contending that even after expulsion from the party, OPS continued to claim himself to be the coordinator of the party.

Disputed Question Of Fact Cannot Be Adjudicated On In A Writ Petition: Madras High Court Declines To Interfere With Election Of MPs/MLAs

Case Title: ML Ravi v Chief Election Commissioner and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 16

The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the election of some MPs and MLAs noting that the issue involved disputed questions of fact which could not be looked into in a writ petition.

Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing a plea by ML Ravi to declare the election of some MPs and MLAs as null and void and declare the acceptance of their forms as illegal.

Ravi had contended that the respondent MPs and MLAs were members of one political party but had contested the election on the symbol of another political party which was impermissible under law. He submitted that the sworn affidavit filed by these candidates was false and thus the Form B issued was illegal.

Merely Watching Child Pornography Not An Offence Under POCSO Act Or Section 67B Information Technology Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: S Harish v Inspector of Police and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 17

Setting aside the criminal proceedings initiated against a man, the Madras High Court recently observed that watching child pornographic videos will itself not attract offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that to attract the offences under the POCSO Act, a child or children must have been used for pornography purposes. In the present case, the court noted that accused had watched pornography videos but had not used a child or children for pornographic purposes. This, in the opinion of the court, could only be construed as a moral decay on the part of the accused person.

With respect to the charges under Section 67B of the IT Act, the accused must have published, transmitted, and created materials depicting children in sexually explicit acts or conduct. The court added that the section did not make child pornography, per se, an offence. Thus, the court noted that the Act did not cover a case where a person had merely downloaded child pornography in his electronic gadget and watched the same without doing anything more.

ALSO READ: Gen Z Grappling With Porn Addiction, Must Be Counselled Out Of It: Madras High Court

Madras High Court Orders YouTuber To Pay 50 Lakh Compensation To Transgender Politician Apsara Reddy For Defamation

Case Title: Apsara Reddy v Joe Micheal Praveen

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 18

The Madras High Court recently ordered YouTuber Joe Micheal Praveen to pay Rs 50 Lakh compensation to Apsara Reddy, a transperson, politician and journalist.

Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that the statements made by Praveen were derogatory and nothing but humiliation to Reddy. The court noted that because of the defamatory statements, some programs in which Reddy was supposed to talk had been cancelled.

The court observed that though a person had a right to post on YouTube, he could not cross his limit and encroach upon the privacy of others. The court added that the right of publication is subject to reasonable restriction and when statements are made touching upon the character, behavior and personal life of any individual, it would have serious impact.

“Even Prisoner Who Committed Heinous Crime Entitled To Be Treated As Human”: Madras HC Allows Convicts To Attend Mother's Death Ceremony

Case Title: P Gunasekaran v The Deputy Inspector General (Prison)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 19

Granting leave to two convicts who were accused in an NDPS case, the Madras High Court recently observed that even prisoners who had committed heinous crimes were entitled to be treated as human beings which was a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that rules regarding ordinary leave to prisoners were meant to bring consistency while granting leave but these rules had to be mended when it came to the relationship between a mother and son. The court added that it was tyrannical to deprive a son from attending his mother's death ceremony.

“Need Of The Hour”: Madras High Court Upholds Amendment Bringing Chairman, Members Of PSC Under Purview Of State Vigilance Commission & DVAC

Case Title: Dr P Perumalsamy v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 20

The Madras High Court recently upheld an amendment to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulation 1954, bringing the Chairman and Members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) under the purview of the State Vigilance Commission and Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption with effect from August 9, 2011.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the amendment did not affect the rights of the Chairman and members nor did it change the service conditions. The court observed that only an investigation agency was being provided for and thus the amendment could not be said to be arbitrary.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

“Nowadays No Decency In Expressing News”: Madras HC In Journalist Abhijit Majumder's Plea For Quashing FIR Over Derogatory Remarks On Periyar

Case Title: Abhijit Majumder v Inspector of Police and another

Case No: CRL OP 24668 of 2023

While hearing a plea moved by journalist Abhijit Majumder for quashing an FIR registered against him by the Tamil Nadu police for his opinion piece criticizing TN Minister Udayanidhi Stalin's Sanatana Dharma remark, the Madras High Court orally remarked that nowadays there was no decency in expressing news and opinions.

Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the journalist in his op-ed had made certain statements against Periyar, an Indian social activist and 'father' of the Dravidian movement, which were defamatory and derogatory.

"Will Look Into Legality Of Final Closure Reports": Madras HC Fixes Date For Hearing Suo Moto Revision Against Discharge/Acquittal Of Ministers

The Madras High Court on Monday fixed dates for hearing the suo moto revisions petitions against discharge/acquittal of ministers.

The court has decided to hear the suo moto revisions against KKSSR Ramachandran, Thangam Thenarasu, O Panneerselvam and B Valarmathi together from 5th February to 9th February 2024. The case against Periyasamy will be taken up on February 12 and 13 and against Ponmudi will be taken up from February 19 to 22.

While fixing the dates for the hearing, Justice Anand Venkatesh, who has returned to the portfolio for handling cases against MPs and MLAs made it clear that the court will not be looking into the merits of the order discharging/acquitting the ministers, but will be focusing on the legality of the orders.

Madras High Court Asks State To Consider Providing Horizontal Reservation To Transgender Persons In Education, Public Employment

Case Title: Grace Banu Ganesan and another v State of Tamil Nadu and another

Case No: WP 21631 of 2023

The Madras High court on Tuesday asked the State government to consider providing horizontal reservation to transgender persons in education and public employment.

Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy asked the Advocate General to get instructions on the possible policy decision and respond by March 4th.

The court was hearing pleas by Grace Banu Ganesan and Rizwan Bharathi, both working for the rights of trans persons, seeking to frame and implement a horizontal reservation policy for transgender and intersex persons in public employment and education.

The court added that the transgender persons could be given exclusive reservation without making them choose between the binary divisions of male and female.

The court thus suggested that the State could come up with a horizontal reservation policy without affecting the vertical reservations already in place.

Sterlite Protests | Madras High Court Questions Promotion Of Indicted Police Officers; Says NHRC's Duty Doesn't End With Granting Compensation

Case Title: Henry Tiphagne v The National Human Rights Commission and others

Case No: WP (MD) 10526 of 2021

The Madras High Court on Wednesday questioned the rationale behind promoting police officers who were involved in the firing that took place in 2018 in Thoothukudi during the Anti-Sterlite protests.

The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthillkumar was hearing a plea by Henry Tiphagne, Executive Director of People's Watch, seeking directions to NHRC to reopen the case in the matter of killing of unarmed protestors. Tiphagne had challenged the NHRC's closure of its suo moto investigation into the matter.

The court questioned the rationale behind promoting such officers. However, noting that the it couldn't make any observations before hearing these officers, Court directed the petitioner to implead the officers named in the commission report and adjourned the case.

Senior Advocate PS Raman Appointed New Advocate General Of Tamil Nadu

Senior Advocate PS Raman has been appointed as the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu.

A notification issued by Chief Secretary Shiv Das Meena on 12th January 2024 read as under:

"In exercice of powers conferred by Article 165(1) of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby appoints Thiru PS Raman, Senior Advocate as the Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu from the date of his taking charge vice Thiru R Shunmugasundram, resigned,"

Long Period Of Incarceration Not Ground For Bail When Charges Are Under PMLA: Chennai Court Denies Bail To Minister Senthil Balaji

The Principal Sessions Court in Chennai has denied bail to Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case. Balaji, who is currently serving as a Minister without portfolio, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on June 14 last year.

Principal Sessions Judge S Alli dismissed Balaji's bail petition on Friday. The court noted that though it was true that Balaji had been in custody from June 2023, long period of incarceration was not a criteria for granting bail when Balaji was facing prosecution under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act.