Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 3 to September 10, 2023

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 252 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 260

NOMINAL INDEX

V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, Director of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 252

Mohammed Hasan Kuthous v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 253

S Ramachandran v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 254

Dr. L Murugan v Murasoli Trust rep by its Trustee R.S. Bharathi, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 255

M Jeya v The Principal Secretary and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 256

A Chinnaponnu v Union of India and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 257

Senthil Mallar v The Commissioner of Police and another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 258

R Girija v S Ramalingam and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 259

Malaravan v Praveen Travels Private Limited, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 260

REPORT

Madras High Court Directs Principal Sessions Court To Hear Senthil Balaji’s Bail Plea, Sets Aside Transfer Of Case To MP/MLA Court

Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, Director of Enforcement

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 252

The Madras High Court on Monday directed the Principle Sessions Court in Chennai to hear the bail plea moved by Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case.

The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu noted that since the offence alleged to have been committed by Balaji was one punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, only a Special Court designated under Section 43(1) of the Act by the Central Government could try the same.

Order Allowing Extension Of Remand Is A Final Order, Appealable Under Section 21 NIA Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: Mohammed Hasan Kuthous v State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 253

The Madras High Court has held that an order of trial court allowing an application filed by the prosecution seeking extension of remand of accused is not an interlocutory order but a final order and the same is amenable to appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act.

The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel rejected the prosecutor’s argument that an order acceding to prayer for extension of remand is an interlocutory order. Prosecutor argued that while an order rejecting the extension of remand is appealable, an order allowing the same is not appealable. However, the court did not accept this view and referred to the age old adage “Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander too”.

ALSO READ: S.43D UAPA | Application For Extension Of Remand Ought Not To Be Heard Without Production Of Accused: Madras High Court Grants Default Bail

Senthil Balaji’s Continuation As Minister Without Portfolio Doesn’t Augur Well With Constitutional Principles : Madras High Court

Case Title: S Ramachandran v State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 254

The Madras High Court on Tuesday left it to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu MK Stalin to take a call on the continuation of Minister Senthil Balaji - who is now under custody in a money laundering case - in the cabinet as a Minister without portfolio. The court added that Balaji’s continuation in the cabinet without a portfolio did not serve any purpose and did not auger well with the purity of administration.

Calling it a “constitutional travesty” the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed that the founding fathers of the constitution may not have comprehended corrosion of governance to such an extent that a elected member in custody was rewarded with the status of Minister.

Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Defamation Case Against Union Minister And Former Tamil Nadu BJP Head L Murugan

Case Title: Dr. L Murugan v Murasoli Trust rep by its Trustee R.S. Bharathi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 255

The Madras High Court on Tuesday refused to quash a defamation case filed against Union Minister Dr. L Murugan by DMK mouthpiece Murasoli Trust. The court also directed the Special Court to complete the trial within a period of three months.

The trust had filed a private complaint against the Minister under Section 499 and Section 500 of the IPC, for the remarks made by him in a press meet. It was alleged that the Minister's statements gave an impression that the Trust was being run on Panchami land (land that is distributed for Dalits in Tamil Nadu).

While refusing to quash the proceedings pending before the Special Court, Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that in cases of defamation, the statements had to be tested only from the point of view of common prudent man and that the statements put forward by the Minister would be understood as questioning the right and title of the property.

Custodial Torture: Madras High Court Directs State To Pay ₹25 Lakh Compensation To Deceased Minor's Parents

Case Title: M Jeya v The Principal Secretary and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 256

The Madras High Court recently directed the State government to pay a sum of Rs 25 Lakh to the parents of a 17-year-old boy who passed away as a result of alleged custodial torture by the Police.

Justice P Dhanabal added that since the trial against the erring officials was pending, the question of recovery from the erring officials could be decided by the Government.

The court noted that since it was prima facie established that the deceased died only while he was in custody of the police, it could invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to award compensation.

Married Daughter Can't Challenge Denial Of Compassionate Appointment In Absence Of Dependency, Financial Hardship Of Bereaved Family: Madras HC

Case Title: A Chinnaponnu v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 257

The Madras High Court has made it clear that even though married daughters are equally eligible to be considered for compassionate employment, their appointment has to be considered on touchstone of criteria like dependency, financial status of the bereaved family, etc.

Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji observed as under,

“Undoubtedly, the principle of gender equality and non-discrimination is of paramount importance. We accept that no contrary view can be taken in considering compassionate appointment for married daughters of the family unless they satisfy other criteria viz., dependency, financial status, etc., as laid down in the relevant Rules or Act,”

Cannot Compel Everybody To Follow Same Ideology, Person Entitled To His Opinions In A Democratic Set Up: Madras High Court

Case Title: Senthil Mallar v The Commissioner of Police and another

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 258

The Madras High Court recently remarked that every person in a democratic person is entitled to his reservations and opinions about a particular ideology and no one can be compelled to follow the same ideology. The court also added that only dialogue could ensure scope for evolution in the Society.

Justice Anand Venkatesh added that the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution also included freedom to hold opinions and it could not be prevented on the mere apprehension that there may be law and order problem.

Using Political Power To Grab Land From Common Man Is Daylight Robbery: Madras High Court

Case Title: R Girija v S Ramalingam and Another

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 259

“Using political power and influence to grab land from a powerless common man is nothing short of day-light robbery" the Madras High Court recently observed.

Justice SM Subramaniam added that large-scale exploitation of political power especially in land-grabbing matters would pave the way for unhealthy democracy and that this political power must be used for socially beneficial issues instead of personal gains.

The court also noted that politicians play an influential role in the lives of the common man and it was imperative that this power not be misused. The court noted that instead of having a positive and healthy impact on the lives of the people, the politicians these days were using their political connections to create nuisance to the public.

[Motor Accident] FIR To Be Treated As Claim Petition, Limitation Not Applicable If Report Filed Within 6 Months: Madras High Court

Case Title: Malaravan v Praveen Travels Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 260

The Madras High Court has recently observed that under the Motor Vehicle Act, the limitation period will not be applicable to claims made when the police have already filed a report under Section 159 of Motor Vehicle Act.

The provision stipulates that during investigation police officer shall prepare an accident information report to facilitate the settlement of claim and submit the same to the Claims Tribunal.

Justice V Lakshminarayan observed that when an FIR has already been registered in connection with a motor accident and details of the same is sent to the jurisdictional Tribunal, a claim petition has to be treated only as a reminder to the court to call for the FIR and register the same as Claim Petition.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Madras High Court Issues Bailable Warrant Against Two IAS Officers For Failing To Appear In Court Despite Statutory Notice

Case Title: Chinnathai v Kakarla Usha and others

Case No: Sub. A(MD) 241 and 242 of 2023 in Cont.P(MD)No.1003 of 2023

The Madras High Court has issued a bailable warrant to two IAS officers- Kakarla Usha and K Nandakumar for their failure to appear in court in connection with a case. The court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Chennai to secure the presence of the officers by the next date of hearing.

Justice Battu Devanand noted that the court had issued a Statutory Notice for the appearance of the authorities on July 31st, 2023, and on that date, only the third respondent was present in the court.

TN Minister & DVAC Seek Recusal Of Madras HC Judge From Suo Motu Revision Against Acquittal Order

Case Title: Suo Moto RC v. Vigilance and Anti Corruption wing

Case No: CRL RC 1419 of 2023

Tamil Nadu Minister K. Ponmudi and the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) on Thursday requested Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court to recuse himself from hearing the suo moto revision against District court order acquitting the Higher Education Minister in a disproportionate assets case.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for DVAC said Justice Venkatesh had "predetermined" the issues, without hearing both the parties. "If your lordships observations are predetermined, then that becomes final. Can revisional jurisdiction do that without hearing the parties?” Luthra submitted.

“Have Opened A Can Of Worms”: Madras HC Judge On Two More Suo Motu Revision Against Ministers Discharge, Calls It An Institutional Problem

After having decided to review every decision passed by the Special MP/MLA Courts in matters concerning politicians, the Madras High Court has once again taken suo motu cognizance of orders discharging Ministers in corruption cases.

This time, Justice Anand Venkatesh has taken cognisance of the order acquitting former Backward Class and Minority Welfare Minister B Valarmathi and present Rural Development Minister of Tamil Nadu I. Periyasamy.

Calling it an institutional problem, the Judge on Friday said that case after case, the system had failed and now only god could save the institution.