News Analysis India

Tag: Madras High Court

  • Madras HC orders notice on plea to quash govt order proposing to send rice to Sri Lanka 

    By PTI

    CHENNAI: Alleging Rs 54 crore estimated loss in the purchase of 40,000 tonne rice to be sent to Sri Lanka in lines with a Tamil Nadu government decision, a PIL petition has been filed in the Madras High Court to scrap the proposal and consequently direct the authorities concerned to take steps to purchase the rice through the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution and the Food Corporation of India (FCI) in New Delhi.

    When the public interest litigation petition, also praying for a direction to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to conduct an inquiry into the matter, came up for hearing on Thursday, a vacation bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and Senthil Kumar Ramamurthy posted it after summer vacation, so as to enable the authorities concerned to file their counter-affidavits.

    According to petitioner A Jaishankar of Tiruvarur, Chief Minister M K Stalin announced in the state Assembly on April 29 that 40,000 tonne of rice will be provided to Sri Lanka to help the citizens who are facing acute hardships due to economic crises in that country.

    Pursuant to this, the Tamil Nadu Civil Supply Corporation on May 5 submitted a proposal to the Finance and Consumer and Co-operative departments to grant permission to purchase the rice.

    It was stated in the said proposal that the Corporation had conducted a meeting with various rice millers and they have agreed to supply rice at the rate of Rs 33 per kg, including all expenses except transportation cost.

    After negotiations, the rice millers agreed to supply 40,000 tonne of any one of three varieties of par-boiled rice–Co-51, ADT-45 and Andhra Ponni at the rate of Rs 33.

    50 net per kg including transportation, loading, unloading, handling, toll charges, bag with printing and all other relevant expenditure up to delivery point at Chennai/Tuticorin Ports.

    The total cost has arrived at Rs 134 crore and the government on May 9 granted the financial sanction.

    Petitioner contended that the authorities concerned had taken a hasty decision to purchase such a huge quantity of rice without approaching the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution and the FCI, from where the rice can be purchased at a subsidised rate.

    The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act were given a go-by. The way in which they had acted raised a lot of suspicions, he submitted.

    Petitioner pointed out that the price of rice per quintal (100 kg) is Rs 2,000 in the open market sales scheme for 2022.

    If the authorities concerned had opted to purchase the rice under the said scheme, it would have brought down the expenditure from Rs 134 crore to just Rs 80 crore, resulting in a saving of about Rs 54 crore.

    Following criticism on the social media, the government had issued a press release later, wherein it was stated that the central government was supplying rice only for the public distribution scheme (PDS) under the subsidised rate of Rs 20 per kg and it cannot be purchased from them and sent to any other country.

    The State wanted to project as if the government had taken a decision to purchase high-quality rice and it cannot be compared with the one supplied by the FCI under the PDS scheme, the petitioner contended.

    The government indirectly stated that the PDS rice supplied by the FCI was low quality and hence, it decided to purchase on a nomination basis.

    The government had also warned that if anyone raises the issue, he/she will face appropriate legal action.

    The authorities concerned had completely failed to either enquire with the Union government or the FCI for the supply of rice and there was no mention in the GO or in the press release that the Centre had rejected their request.

    The state government had taken a ‘hasty’ decision without verifying this aspect and without analysing the other modes of purchase and thereby committed a serious error, which would amount to Rs 54 crore loss to the exchequer, the petitioner contended.

  • Madras High Court expresses concern over underage driving, urges action

    By PTI

    CHENNAI: Expressing concern over underage driving, the Madras High Court has directed the government to effectively implement the Motor Vehicles Act to prevent minors and underaged persons from driving motorised two-wheelers or four-wheelers.

    Justice S Kannammal hoped that the law enforcement agencies would find ways and means, so that there may not be any such recurrence of the adolescent getting entangled in untoward incidents of motor vehicle accidents and suffer silently.

    “This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that juvenile driving is on the rise in our state (Tamil Nadu) and it is not encouraging.

    Innocent lives are being lost or impaired at a young age, much to the chagrin of the lawmakers and the society as a whole,” the judge said.

    “Instances are galore that teenage boys indulge in bike racing without any impunity, with utter disregard to the safety of other road users. Therefore, it is high time that there should be an effective implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act to curb the menace of underage driving,” Justice Kannammal added.

    The court gave the direction and made the observation while rejecting a plea from Irfan, who drove a two-wheeler and met with a road accident and sustained serious injuries when he was a minor in September 2010.

    He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal here, which in 2017 rejected his plea for Rs 7 lakh compensation from the New India Assurance Company.

    Hence, the present appeal.

    Turning down the plea, the judge said though the court sympathises with the appellant for the injuries sustained by him, it will not be a ground for it to recognise or to give a stamp of approval for the act done by him in riding the two-wheeler, while he was a minor.

    If the claim of the appellant is entertained, the court is afraid that it would open the floodgates and those who have no right to drive a vehicle would approach it and justify their act to be recognised resulting in a docket explosion.

    “Even though Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent legislation, as contended by the counsel for the appellant, I do not think that it would ipso facto be applied in all the cases.

    Further, when there is a clear violation of policy conditions, the Insurance company cannot be burdened with the obligation of paying compensation amount to the appellant, when under law, he is not entitled to receive it.”

    “When the appellant himself is a tort-feasor, he is not entitled to maintain the claim petition at all. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no legal infirmity in the order of dismissal passed by the Tribunal,” the judge said.

  • TN seeks stay on Thanjavur student suicide case transfer to CBI

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: Tamil Nadu on Thursday moved the Supreme Court against the Madras High Court’s order transferring the probe into the Thanjavur student’s death by suicide to the CBI. Meanwhile, the 17-year-old girl’s father filed a caveat petition in the top court.

    The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court transferred the probe to the CBI on Monday following a plea filed by the girl’s father which stated that he had lost faith in the State police, which was investigating the case. 

    The family of the girl has alleged she faced harassment at the school as they had refused to undergo a religious conversion and accused the police of leaking videos of the girl’s dying declaration. State education officials and police have ruled out pressure to convert as a factor in the case. 

    Police had also claimed the girl had issues with her stepmother. In its appeal before the SC, the State has sought a stay on the Madurai Bench’s order and contended that a mere press conference by the police, ruling out the religious conversion angle, is not enough to transfer the case. 

    The HC, in its ruling, said there was an “attempt of the police to derail the investigation” and noted the girl had not made any allegations regarding her stepmother in the police statement or dying declaration. The child had attempted to take her life on January 9, after allegedly being forced to perform domestic chores. She died on January 19 without responding to treatment. Police subsequently arrested and remanded the warden accused of harassing her.

  • Installation of CCTVs in spas amounts to infringing into privacy: Madras HC

    By PTI

    MADURAI: Installation of CCTV cameras in spas and massage parlours, on the basis of apprehension, is “intrusion into the rights of individuals” and would amount to infringing their bodily autonomy, the Madras High Court has observed.

    Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madurai bench of the HC made the observation on Tuesday while disposing of a petition from a spa owner seeking direction to the Tiruchirappalli police to issue a no objection certificate.

    He also wanted this Court to restrain the police from interfering with the running of the spa. The judge noted installing CCTV cameras was also a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

    “In the first place, unless a legislature mandates by law that CCTV cameras should be installed in certain place, it cannot be done. It is violation of Art 21 (on privacy),” he said.

    “The installation of CCTV equipment inside premises such as a spa would unquestionably infract upon a person’s bodily autonomy. These are inviolable spaces where the prying eye of the state simply cannot be allowed to enter,” the judge added.

    A decision to install a CCTV camera which has a bearing on a person’s privacy requires the most careful of considerations, requiring the government to apply its mind prudently and determine what manner of regulations ought to be put in place for its proper use, the court said.

    “Suspicion that immoral activities are taking place in massage centres cannot be reason enough to intrude into an individual’s right to relax for it intrinsically is part and parcel of his fundamental right to privacy,” the judged observed.

    The government notification, the judge said, contemplated cameras at the entry and exit points without any prejudice to the individual’s privacy.

    He also disagreed with another judge’s order while hearing a writ petition filed for obtaining the “No objection Certificate”, from police where the latter had directed the installation of functional CCTV cameras in all spas, massage therapy centres in the state.

  • Madras HC Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee to be transferred to Meghalaya apex court

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI/CHENNAI :  The Supreme Court Collegium on Tuesday recommended the transfer of Madras High Court Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee to the Meghalaya High Court.

    According to a statement uploaded on the apex court website, the collegium headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, in a meeting held on September 16, also recommended the transfer of Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari of the Allahabad High Court to the Madras High Court.

    Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee was appointed the Chief Justice of Madras High Court in January 2021 and has not yet completed a year after being appointed the same. 

    He is known for making strong observations in court and his oral comments that the Election Commission should be booked on murder charges for the lack of Covid norms followed in the election process was one among the important statements. 

    Justice Sanjib Banerjee had also earlier categorically said the welfare of fishermen should be the first preference over beautification of the Marina beach.

  • Plea in Madras HC seeks wide publicity to draft guidelines on accessibility

    By PTI

    CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Friday issued notices to authorities concerned over a PIL petition seeking a direction to the central government to publish the draft “harmonized guidelines and standards for universal accessibility in India, 2021” in an accessible format and in vernacular languages.

    The petitioner also wanted the officials to make printed copies available for inspection at designated offices, provide wide publicity in print and electronic media about the same and invite public comments for a minimum of 30 days.

    A division bench of Justices T S Sivagnanam and Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, before which the petition from city resident Vaishnavi Jayakumar came up, ordered notice to the authorities concerned, returnable by October 20.

    The petitioner, who is a cross-disability rights advocate, living with psychosocial disability with over a decade’s work in fighting to dismantle the physical and attitudinal barriers that confront disabled Indians repeatedly, submitted that the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) in New Delhi had uploaded the draft “harmonized guidelines and standards for universal accessibility in India, 2021” with an office memorandum dated August 12.

    It was not known when this draft was uploaded on the website of the CPWD.

    The OM states the draft was being placed for public comments and that the responses may be submitted up to August 27 by e-mail.

    The petitioner contended that the draft guidelines were not given wide publicity.

    It was inaccessible to persons with disability on account of being non-screen reader compatible and was made available only in the English language.

    Disabled persons were the best judges of what their needs were in terms of infrastructure, product design, accommodation and services.

    “By failing to communicate in any manner that the harmonized guidelines were under review, that stakeholder consultations were being held prior to finalisation of the draft guidelines and that subject draft guidelines were placed in public domain for comments, the respondents had defeated the very purpose of this exercise. People for whose benefit the guidelines are being framed had been denied access to this consultative process. The entire thrust of the “nothing about us without us” philosophy has been lost,” the petitioner said.

    She prayed that the court prevent the CPWD and the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs from releasing or publishing the final guidelines.

    Her main prayer is for a direction to the two authorities to publish the draft guidelines in accessible format and in vernacular, make printed copies available for inspection at designated offices, provide wide publicity in print and electronic media about the draft guidelines and invite public comments for a minimum of 30 days.

  • SC sets aside Madras HC observation on EWS reservation in All India Quota for medical admissions

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Friday set aside a Madras High Court direction that the Centre must seek the top court’s approval before implementing 10 per cent reservation for the EWS in all-India quota (AIQ) seats of medical colleges, saying it “transgressed the limitations” by entering into areas which were alien to the issue.

    The apex court made clear however that it is not quashing the entire high court order passed on August 25 or stating any opinion on its merit but just setting aside the observations made with regard to top court’s approval on Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota.

    A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and B V Nagarathna said the high court should not have expressed such an opinion while hearing a contempt petition filed by ruling DMK party in Tamil Nadu for alleged non-compliance of July 27, 2020 order by the Centre on the issue.

    “We are clearly of the view that the High Court has transgressed the limitations in the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction by entering into areas which were alien to the issue as to whether the judgement dated July 27, 2020 was complied with,” the bench said.

    It said that having come to the conclusion that there was no breach of the judgement (July 27, 2020), the rest of discussions in the order of the High Court were unnecessary for the purpose of the contempt petition.

    “We therefore hold that the direction that has been issued by the high court in paragraph…is alien to the exercise of contempt jurisdiction and accordingly shall stand set aside,” the bench said.

    The top court clarified, that the directions of the high court (with regard to EWS quota) is set aside not on merits but on the sole ground that such a direction has transgressed the limitation of the contempt jurisdiction.

    “Substantive petitions have been filed before this court challenging the notification dated July 29 (on grant of 27 per cent reservation for OBC and 10 per cent for EWS category in NEET admissions for medical courses), we are clarifying that we are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the submissions which will arise for determination in a group of petitions which are pending before this court for adjudication,” it said.

    The top court also clarified that in view of the pendency of petitions before this court it is not expressing any opinion on the correctness of the findings of the high court which had approved the July 29 notification providing 27 per cent reservation to OBC candidates for admission in central medical colleges under the AIQ.

    During the hearing, the top court said, “What the Madras High Court has done is that it has asked the Centre to seek approval of a five-judge bench which will be hearing a challenge made to the validity of 103rd constitutional amendment providing 10 per cent EWS quota”.

    The top court disposed of the Centre’s appeal against the Madras High Court order.

    The bench said that it would hear on October 7, a batch of pleas challenging the Centre’s July 29 notification providing 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Class (OBC) and 10 per cent for EWS category in NEET admissions for medical courses.

    Senior advocate Arvind Dattar, appearing for some candidates, said they will be raising the question on the validity of the income limit of Rs 8 lakh per annum fixed for EWS category besides the challenge to the July 29 notification.

    Senior advocate Shyam Divan, assisted by advocate Vivek Singh pressed for some interim relief for not implementing the quota for this academic year.

    He said that when the information brochure was issued in February this year, the Centre cannot interfere with the admission process midway by changing the criteria of admission, which will take away 2500 PG seats of General Category students and therefore the centre’s July 29 notification is unconstitutional.

    The top court directed Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, to file a joint counter affidavit to the batch of petitions by October 6 and said it will be hearing the matter on October 7.

    On July 29, the Centre had decided to provide 27 percent reservation for Other Backward Classes and 10 per cent reservation for EWS in the all India Quota scheme for undergraduate and postgraduate medical/dental courses (MBBS/MD/MS/ Diploma/BDS /MDS).

    On August 25, while disposing of the contempt plea of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party moved against the Centre for non-compliance of earlier order, the Madras High Court had approved the July 29 notification providing 27 per cent reservation to OBC candidates for admission in central medical colleges under the AIQ.

    The high court, however, had said the inclusion of a further 10 per cent by way of vertical reservation for EWS would require the approval of the Supreme Court and to this extent, the reservation for the EWS, as indicated in the July 29 notification, has to be regarded as impermissible till such approval is obtained.

    However, with regard to 10 per cent reservation for EWS, the high court had observed: “The additional reservation provided for economically weaker sections in the notification of July 29, 2021 cannot be permitted, except with the approval of the Supreme Court in such regard.”

    The high court had approved the notification of the Centre providing 27 per cent reservation to OBC candidates for admission in central medical colleges under the AIQ.

  • Supreme Court​ to hear Centre’s plea against Madras HC observation on EWS quota in medical admissions

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday the Centre’s plea against the Madras High Court’s observation that the notification on grant of 10 per cent quota to the economically weaker sections (EWS) in all-India quota (AIQ) seats of medical colleges would require approval of the top court.

    While disposing of the contempt plea of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) against the Centre, the Madras High Court, on August 25, had approved the July 29 notification of the central government providing 27 per cent reservation to OBC (other backward classes) candidates for admission in central medical colleges under the all-India quota (AIQ).

    The high court, however, had said the inclusion of a further 10 per cent by way of vertical reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) would require the approval of the Supreme Court and to this extent, the reservation for the EWS, as indicated in the July 29 notification, has to be regarded as impermissible till such approval is obtained.

    However, with regard to 10 per cent reservation for EWS, the high court had observed: “The additional reservation provided for economically weaker sections in the notification of July 29, 2021 cannot be permitted, except with the approval of the Supreme Court in such regard.”

    Aggrieved by this, the Centre rushed to the top court on September 3 against the high court’s observation and its plea is listed for hearing on Monday before a bench comprising justices D Y Chandrachud and B V Nagarathna.

    In addition to the Centre’s appeal, the top court would also hear pleas filed by Neil Aurelio Nunes and Yash Tekwani pertaining to the notification.

    Earlier, the high court had approved the notification of the Centre providing 27 per cent reservation to OBC candidates for admission in central medical colleges under the AIQ.

    However, it had rejected a plea for more reservation for Tamil Nadu and had said the reservation of AIQ seats for admission to the undergraduate, postgraduate and diploma medical and dental courses across the states must be uniform.

    Logically, if the seats are given to candidates across the country, there cannot be reservation to one extent in one state and to another extent in a different one, the Madras High Court had said.

    “To the extent that 27 per cent of the seats available for admission in Central educational institutions is reserved for OBC candidates other than the creamy layer, and such figure having been arrived at upon empirical studies being conducted, the provision of 27 per cent reservation for OBC candidates in addition to the approved reservation for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates as indicated in the notification of July 29, 2021 may be permissible subject to the formal approval of the Supreme Court,” it had said.

    The DMK had contended that the OBC candidates in the state must be made eligible for 50 per cent reservation as envisaged under the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993.

    The high court had then closed the contempt petition from the ruling DMK seeking to punish the central government officials concerned for not implementing an order of the High Court issued in July 2020.

    It had added that the in-principle approval of the Supreme Court for providing reservation for OBC candidates under AIQ for medical admission in the state is apparent from its order dated October 26, 2020.

    To such extent, the provision made for 27 per cent reservation in such regard appears to be permissible, since the apex court approved the implementation of reservation for OBC candidates beginning from the academic year 2021-22 by the same order.

    On the issue of 10 per cent quota for EWS category students, the high court had said that the reservation cannot exceed more than 50 per cent as the Supreme Court judgement in the Indra Sawhney case had stated that the quota cannot exceed the cap unless there are exceptional circumstances.

  • Consider plea for separate board for students in Pondy: Madras HC

    By PTI

    CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the Puducherry government to consider a plea for establishment of a separate board for school education, more particularly for X and XII standards, in the Union Territory.

    “In the light of increasing population and the number of school-going children, it may be in the best interest of the students if a board or individual boards for primary and secondary education or even higher education were constituted. However, that is a decision exclusively within the domain of the executive,” the first bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P D Audikesavalu said.

    The bench permitted the petitioner to send a representation afresh to the Education secretary in Puducherry.

    The secretary, it said, will consider the representation in appropriate perspective, particularly considering the many schools which have mushroomed in Puducherry itself and the need for providing a distinct curriculum or even process for students there delinked from what is followed in the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu.

    The bench was disposing of a PIL petition from R Sreedhar on Thursday.

    If such representation is made by the petitioner within the next four weeks, the Secretary should furnish a reply within 12 weeks, the bench said and hoped that expeditious and appropriate steps would be taken by the Puducherry government to best serve the interest of the school-going students in its region.

  • Madras High Court judges differ on setting up branches of SC, BCI, Tribunals in regions

    By PTI

    CHENNAI: Two judges of the Madras High Court, one the senior, who had retired recently and the other a junior one, have differed in the long-pending demands for establishing branches or regional benches of the Supreme Court, Bar Council of India and other Tribunals in the regions, to cover and spread all over India.

    While Justice N Kirubakaran (since retired) has strongly recommended setting up of the above courts in the regions to cover the entire population of 136 crores in the South, East and Western regions of India, Justice R Pongiappan, differed from him.

    He simply said he is neither supporting the opinion of the senior judge nor making any comments/remarks on the issue.

    However, both the judges were unanimous in rejecting a plea from a litigant, recently, making certain allegations against the advocate whom he had engaged in connection with a case.

    According to Karthik Ranganathan, he had sent a complaint against the advocate to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, but its Disciplinary Committee rejected his plea to take penal action against the advocate.

    Instead of moving the appellate authority — Bar Council of India in New Delhi, he moved the Madras High Court to quash the Bar Council order and take action against the advocate.

    The petitioner contended that he was unable to travel to New Delhi, as the appeal against the order passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry has to be filed before the Bar Council of India, which is located 2,186 km away from Chennai.

    Keeping the Courts and Tribunals only in New Delhi would amount to a denial of justice to the majority of people living in faraway places from New Delhi, he further contended.

    Concurring with him, Justice Kirubakaran observed that the demands for setting up the benches of the Supreme Court, BCI and other Tribunals are all matters of great purport and importance, which cannot be swept under the carpet, for, the earlier we deal with them as a nation, the better it would be for us and for the generations that will come after us.

    “These observations are being made not as a lament in the darkness, or an irrelevant obiter.

    This Court expects some action from the Central government in this regard, one way or the other, with the government is required to apply its mind on a method to remedy this perilous situation at the earliest, including amendment of Constitution for the establishment of regional Bench of the Supreme Court, as recommended by various Law Commissions of India and the Parliamentary Affairs Committees.

    The authorities concerned may consider constituting circuit benches/permanent benches of all tribunals located in New Delhi including Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court for each Zone for the benefit of common man, at the earliest,” he said. However, Justice Pongiappan said that he is not agreeable to the views of the senior judge.

    “I have gone through the judgment and I am of the view that the views and observations given (by the senior judge) in certain paragraphs (para.3, 4 and 19 to 32) in the judgment are not related to the prayer sought for in the writ petition.

    Hence, with great respect, I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the views taken by my esteemed brother.

    Accordingly, except approving the decision in negating the writ petition, I am not agreeing with the views and observations made in the above-referred paragraphs of this judgment,” he said.

    Both the judges disposed of the petition with a direction to the petitioner to approach the BCI in New Delhi.