Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 175 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 185 NOMINAL INDEX R Rajamani v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 175 Sasikumar v Union Government of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 176 Arumugapandian @ Bala Vivekanandan @ Rocket Raja v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 177 Suthanthira Kannan v Election Commission of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad)...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 175 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
NOMINAL INDEX
R Rajamani v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
Sasikumar v Union Government of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
Arumugapandian @ Bala Vivekanandan @ Rocket Raja v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
Suthanthira Kannan v Election Commission of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 178
K Selvakumar v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
A Sathiya Prakash v The Board of Control for Cricket in India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
H Raja v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
Safai Karamchari Andolan v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
Ms. Monisha v The National Testing Agency and another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
State of TN & Ors Vs. C. Arnold, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
S. Madhavan vs M/s THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
REPORT
Case Title: R Rajamani v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Registrar of Madurai Kamaraj University reducing a former Lab Assistant's scale of pay and subsequently reducing the pension amount.
Justice RN Manjula that after retirement, the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the University had come to an end and the University held no authority to re-fix the salary and consequential benefits of the petitioner.
The court also observed that as far as universities were concerned, only a Syndicate had the power to appoint the university and fix their emoluments. Thus, in the court's view, the retrospective re-fixation of salary and subsequent reduction of pension amount based on Local fund audit objection was against the law and liable to be set aside.
Case Title: Sasikumar v Union Government of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
The Madras High Court has disposed of a plea to permanently debar Indian National Congress leader Manickam Tagore from contesting any elections in Tamil Nadu state.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq disposed of the plea after taking on record the Election Commission's submission that a competent authority had already considered the issue. The ECI further assured the court that the petitioner's representation would be considered and disposed of within a week.
The Madras High Court had also dismissed another plea seeking disqualification of Manickam Tagore based on a complaint filed by BJP IT Wing's Virudhunagar District President C Selvakumar.
Case Title: Arumugapandian @ Bala Vivekanandan @ Rocket Raja v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by gangster Rocket Raja seeking anticipatory bail.
While dismissing his plea, Justice B Pugalendhi observed that considering Raja's antecedents, recovery of weapons, a video showing his intention to kill, and considering the elections, the court was not inclined to grant bail.
The court remarked that the Tirunelveli region, which was prone to communal violence, was only free from violence for the past few years. The court added that though antecedents need not be considered at the time of bail, the same could not be followed in the present case as even a small spark may cause a catastrophe in light of the elections.
Case Title: Suthanthira Kannan v Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 178
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission to make arrangements for conducting special polling for those persons whose names were left out from the voter's list prepared for the Lok Sabha Elections 2024.
A bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice G Chandrasekharan noted that the Final Voters List was published in January while the provisional list was published even before that. The court then opined that it could not pass any orders at this point, after the polling, when the petitioner had not raised any objection to the voters list earlier.
Case Title: K Selvakumar v The State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
While denying bail to a man accused of murdering a person belonging to the marginalized community, the Madras High Court has stressed that while considering bail applications in connection with offenses under the SC/ST Act, the courts should refrain from granting bail merely based on period of detention.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar was not inclined to grant bail observing that the accused seemed to care more about the life of a domestic bird than that of a man merely because he belonged to a marginalised society. Thus, noting that the accused had committed a gruesome murder, the court rejected the bail application.
Case Title: A Sathiya Prakash v The Board of Control for Cricket in India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
The Madras High Court recently disposed of a plea seeking stringent action against the sale of IPL tickets in the black market at higher prices and to issue directions to the authorities concerned with the M.A. Chidambaram Stadium to conduct the cricket matches fairly.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad directed the Board of Control for Cricket in India and the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu to look into the representation of the petitioner, A Sathiya Prakash and to decide the matter on its own merits.
In his plea, Prakash stated that since the IPL attracted fans wordwide, some anti-social elements were attempting to utilize the curiosity of the fans to watch the cricket match live In stadiums. He informed the court that anti-social elements were purchasing tickets in bulk and re-selling the same in several ways at huge costs.
Case Title: H Raja v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a second application filed by BJP leader H Raja to quash the FIR registered against him for making derogatory remarks against former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K Karunanidhi and his daughter Kanimozhi Karunanidhi.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that the grounds raised in the quash petition were purely factual and were already canvassed in earlier quash petitions. Thus, finding no new merits in the plea, the court dismissed his plea.
Case Title: Safai Karamchari Andolan v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
Lamenting over the persistence of manual scavenging in today's day and age, the Madras High Court has issued a slew of guidelines to eradicate manual scavenging and to ensure compliance with the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad remarked that though there might have been a need for manual scavenging in an age of absence of technology, continuing the practice in today's age with technological advancements was nothing but State sanctioned casteism which was against the constitutional ethos.
The court added that lack of funds could not be a justification to continue the practice and the Court, being the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights could not be a mute spectator and allow generational condemnation of the oppressed class to a life of poverty, ill-health, and indignity in complete disregard to their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the constitution.
Case Title: Ms. Monisha v The National Testing Agency and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
The Madras High Court recently paved the way for a student, with a special need of wearing adult diapers, to attend the NEET UG Examinations wearing the diaper. The court noted that the principle of reasonable accommodation was not restricted to those suffering disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 but to all persons having special needs.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that any candidate who was not necessarily suffering from any disability set out under the 2016 act but otherwise had special requirements or had a biological condition was entitled to reasonable accommodation.
The court also directed the examination authorities to ensure that all examination centres had suitable toilet facilities with water amenities and a minimum number of sanitary products so that the girls coming unprepared could use them. The court also suggested that the restrooms could be thoroughly inspected in advance and regularly thus limiting the frisking of candidates for a second time and thus, saving the candidates' precious time.
Case Name- State of TN & Ors Vs. C. Arnold
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice G. Arul Murugan while deciding a Writ Appeal in the case of State of TN & Ors Vs. C. Arnold has held that application for compassionate appointment can be made by a minor under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023. However appointment to such an applicant can be given only once they attain the age of majority.
The court further observed that as per Rule 6 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, at the time of making the application of compassionate appointment, it is not mandatory that the applicant is of minimum years of age and an application can be made even on behalf of a minor. However, when such an application is considered, the appointment can be given to the legal heir only after they attain majority.
Case Name- S. Madhavan vs M/s THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice N.Mala while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of S. Madhavan vs M/s THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd. has held that a question that is referred to a labour court under section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act cannot be construed as an Industrial Dispute under section 2(k) of the ID Act.
The court observed that the phrase “as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act or law” cannot convert a question referred under section 17(2) of the ID Act into an Industrial Dispute as defined under section 2(k) of the ID Act. The above-mentioned phrase would only mean that while answering the question referred, the Labour Court would adjudicate it in the same manner as it would adjudicate a reference under the ID Act. Thus, a question that is referred to a Labour Court under section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act cannot be construed as an Industrial Dispute under section 2(k) of the ID Act.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
While speaking at a lecture series organized by the Madras Bar Association Academy in coordination with the Rakesh Law Foundation, Justice Anand Venkatesh of Madras High Court emphasized that an individual should have the courage to accept his mistakes and be open to changing it.
The judge delivered a lecture on “A Judge Criticizing his own judgment in the Matter of Suit for Land”. The judge discussed how he had made a mistake while delivering judgment in a 2018 case, in the matter of Harsha Estates v Kalyana Chakravarty.
The judge remarked that he, as an individual was criticising the judgment delivered by him as a judge. He added that this attitude was very important since evolution happens when a person knows he has committed a mistake and is willing to correct that mistake. He added that everyone was bound to commit a mistake but it was also important to have a willingness to identify and reconsider the mistake.