- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Madras High Court
- /
- 50 Important Judgments Of Madras...
50 Important Judgments Of Madras High Court In 2023
Upasana Sajeev
6 Jan 2024 6:30 AM GMT
LiveLaw reported 413 judgments from the Madras High Court in 2023. Here are some important judgments: 1. Court Cannot Send Notice To Governor: Madras High Court Rejects Plea Against Tamil Nadu Governor Over 'Office Of Profit' Claim Case Title: M Kannadasan v Union Of India Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 5 The Madras High Court has rejected a plea by Thanthai Periyar...
LiveLaw reported 413 judgments from the Madras High Court in 2023. Here are some important judgments:
Case Title: M Kannadasan v Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
The Madras High Court has rejected a plea by Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam challenging Governor RN Ravi's authority to continue to hold office.
Holding the petition to be non-maintainable, the bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the court cannot issue notice to the Governor as he enjoys immunity under Article 136 of the Constitution.
2. Madras High Court Bats For Better Prison Culture, Orders Preparation Of Prisoners' Rights Handbook
Case Title: People's Watch v. The Home Secretary, Home Department (Prison) and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
Noticing shortcomings in the manner in which prison administration is carried out at present, the Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions to the State and the Prison Department for creating a better prison environment and prison culture.
The Madurai bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad directed the respondent authorities to also prepare a “Prisoners' Rights Handbook” highlighting the rights of the prisoners and their grievance mechanisms. A copy of this Handbook is to be given to each prisoner upon their admission.
Case Title: Po.Mu.Iraniyan @ Muthu Murugan v. The Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
While disposing of a petition seeking to take action against cultural programmes denigrating the Kuravar community, the Madras High Court directed the state to ensure that no dance performances are identified with a community, so as to denigrate the members of the community.
..ensure that no dance performance is identified using a caste/ tribal community's name so as to insult or degrade the persons belonging to such community.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad of the Madurai bench also directed the State and police authorities not to grant permissions to such cultural programmes depicting the Kuravar community in an obscene manner.
The court also directed the authorities to open a separate portal for the general public where any grievance with respect to obscene representation of the community could be raised and the related videos could be uploaded. The Cyber crime department could then look into the grievance and take appropriate action whenever necessary.
Case Title: Mr. AD Padmasingh Issac and others v. Karaikudi Achi Mess and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
While rejecting a plaint by Aachi Spices and Foods seeking an injunction restraining Karaikudi Achi Mess from using a trademark name or similar sounding expression in any media, websites and other platforms, the Madras High Court has highlighted that “pre-institution mediation” mandated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is a pre-suit legal drill and it cannot be ordered as a post suit exercise.
Justice M Sundar stressed that Section 12A is in the nature of a jurisdictional fact. This means that a party cannot plead that the pre-institution mediation will be carried out after the institution of the suit. Thus, any such attempt by the parties to dispense with pre-institution mediation is impermissible.
Case Title: The Designated Officer v. Jayavilas Tobacco Traders LLP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
The Madras High Court recently set aside a notification issued by the state Commissioner of Food Safety imposing a ban on sale of Gutka, Pan Masala, flavoured or scented food products or chewable food products that contain tobacco or nicotine.
While setting aside the notification, the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Kumaresh Babu held that the commissioner had exceeded his powers while passing such a notification. The court agreed with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Sugandhi Snuff King Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Commissioner (Food Safety) Government of Delhi.
Case Title: Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
The Madras High Court has said that the Shariat Councils are neither courts nor arbitrators and thus they cannot pronounce or certify dissolution of marriage by Khula.
Justice C Saravanan quashed a Khula certificate issued by the Shariat Council and directed a woman and her husband to approach the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority or a Family Court to resolve their disputes.
The bench noted that even previously, the High Court in Bader Sayeed Vs. Union of India had restrained bodies such as Kazis from issuing certificates dissolving marriages by Khula.
Case Title: R Rajesh v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
The Madras High Court has quashed a notification issued by the Registrar of NCLT which made it mandatory for advocates appearing before any bench of NCLT to wear gowns.
The division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq in the judgment noted that as per Section 34 of the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules, only the High Court can frame rules for the dress code for the appearance of advocates.
The court added that the powers prescribed under Rule 51 of the NCLT Rules are merely for discharging functions as per the Act, in accordance with the principles of natural justice and equity. The same could not mean conferring power to prescribe the dress code, more so when it is contrary to the Bar Council of India rules, it said.
Case Title: G Subramanian v. K Phanindra Reddy IAS (batch cases)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
The Madras High Court has allowed a batch of pleas challenging a single judge order imposing certain conditions on the route march sought to be carried out by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq noted that the State must uphold the citizens' right to freedom of speech and expression. The court thus directed the RSS to file fresh applications for carrying out the route march on three different dates and directed the Tamil Nadu police to permit the RSS to take out route marches on any of such dates in various districts across the State on public roads.
Case Title: Dr. C Vijayabhaskar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
The Madras High Court has recently stayed the operation of Justice Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry report with respect to the remarks made against former Tamil Nadu health minister C Vijayabhaskar.
Justice GR Swaminathan allowed the interim prayer in a plea moved by Vijayabhaskar challenging the recommendations of the commission and seeking to quash the report as far as Vijayabhaskar was concerned and the Government order under which appropriate action was to be initiated based on the recommendations of the commission.
Case Title: Shiva Sankar Baba v. State and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
Justice RN Manjula of Madras High Court has revealed that she was sent “pseudonymous letters of threat” dissuading her from passing orders in a petition filed by self-styled godman Shiva Shankar Baba to quash the FIR filed against him in a sexual assault case.
Adding that such a cheap attitude only shows the cowardice of such persons, the Judge added that these attempts will not stand in her way of dispensing justice.
Case Title: V Ayyadurai v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
The Madras High Court has come down heavily on the State of Tamil Nadu for its Orders determining a ceiling limit of fees payable to advocates appearing on behalf of the Government.
The government had determined that for pending arbitration matters, civil suits, original petitions, original side appeals, civil miscellaneous appeals and for regular cases, the fee which shall be payable would be 1 % of the award/decree subject to a ceiling of Rs. 10,00,000.
Calling such fee fixation arbitrary and irrational, Justice CV Karthikeyan held that the Government Orders gave an impression that legal professional was reduced to that of a contract worker. He added that the government should appreciate the work done by the Advocates in defending the policies of the Government in courts.
Case Title: The High court of Judicature at Madras v. Thirumalai and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
While dismissing a review application filed by the High Court of Madras on its administrative side, the Madras High Court held that the administrative side cannot seek a review of its own judgments on the judicial side as it would amount to undermining the judicial fibre.
Justice PT Asha noted that while an administrative order of the High Court can be subject to scrutiny, the vice versa was not true.
13. Hindu Succession Act Will Not Come In Way Of Inheritance By Tribal Women: Madras High Court
Case Title: Saravanan and another v. Semmayee and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
The Madras High Court has recently come to the support of tribal women in their struggle for equal succession rights. The court has noted that the Hindu Succession Law does not to exclude tribal women from its operation but only intends to positively include the customs.
Clause (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act states that the Act shall not apply to the members of the Scheduled Tribe unless the Central Government by notification in the official gazette otherwise directs.
Justice SM Subramaniam highlighted that the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act should not come in the way of inheritance by tribal women in areas where Hinduism and Buddhism were being followed.
Case Title: P Sathish @ Sathish Kumar v. State and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
The Madras High Court has held that appointing Deputy Commissioners of Police as Executive Magistrate is violative of the Constitution and the District Police Act.
A bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice Anand Venkatesh thus declared two Government Orders as unconstitutional, which gave Deputy Commissioners the powers of an Executive Magistrate while dealing with bonds for keeping peace.
The court added that if the police were allowed to continue with such powers, it would lead to anarchy as the entire process of investigation, prosecution and adjudication will be done by one branch of the executive - the police.
Case Title: Periya Elayaraja and others v. The District General of Police and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
Refusing relief to 61 persons claiming to be practicing alternative medicine, the Madras High Court said that unqualified persons cannot claim any right to practice alternate medicines. The court was also critical of unrecognised institutions conducting six months medical courses and issuing diploma certificate and noted that the same would bring disastrous consequences for the society.
Justice SM Subramaniam said it is the duty of the State to ensure that these unrecognised institutions are dealt with properly and such invalid diploma certificates are cancelled.
Case Title: Prashant Umrao @ Prashant Kumar Umrao v. Inspector of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
The Madras High Court has granted anticipatory bail to UP BJP Spokesperson Prashant Umrao in an FIR lodged by the Tamil Nadu police against him for allegedly spreading false information on the alleged attacks against the migrant workers from Bihar in Tamil Nadu.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan granted anticipatory bail on the condition that Umrao will file an undertaking stating that he will to tweet or forward any such message to promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc., before the jurisdictional magistrate.
Case Title: Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore Private Limited v. Dr. Subramanian Swamy and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
The Madras High Court recently set aside a single judge order restraining Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore Private Limited from proceeding with a defamation suit against former MP Dr. Subramaniam Swamy in the High Court of Singapore.
The division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice PB Balaji noted that the single judge had erred in holding that the company, incorporated and carrying out its operations in Singapore, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Indian court as it was the subsidiary of an Indian company (which was one of the defendants in the suit by Swamy).
Case Title: Jayaraman TM v The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that though under Article 338(8) of the Constitution, the National Commission For Scheduled Caste enjoys the powers of a civil court, it does not have the powers to grant temporary or permanent injunction.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the law in this regard has already been discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association and others wherein it has been held that when the commission is not specifically granted powers to issue an injunction, it cannot not pass an order as such.
Case Title: Harini v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
The Madras High Court recently set aside a detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Avadi City on the ground that the intimation of arrest of the detenue made through an SMS which was improper.
The division bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice Nirmal Kumar observed that the right of the detenu to make effective representation is a constitutional safeguard ingrained in Article 22 of the Constitution and this right was hampered in the present case since the intimation was not made in a proper manner.
Case Title: M. Suveathan vs. The State Commission for Protection of Child Rights and Ors W.P. NO. 4615 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
The Madras High Court has said that the State government must bear all costs, including the expenses on books, study material etc., incurred by a child belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Disadvantaged Groups (DG) admitted to school under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act.
The court said that uniform, notebooks, other reading materials and all other necessary ingredients would form an integral part of education that is imparted to the petitioner under the Act.
While allowing the writ petition, the court directed the school to provide all the materials, including uniform, notebooks, text books and all other reading materials to the petitioner forthwith without insisting on any payment from the petitioner, and to make a claim to the State for the amount payable.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu Ayush Sonologist Association v. The Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 152
The Madras High Court has emphasized that only a doctor having specialised qualifications as specified under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 can perform Ultra Sonogram and other Ultra sound techniques on pregnant women.
Justice SM Subramaniam thus dismissed a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Ayush Sonologist Association seeking permission to conduct these techniques.
The court agreed with the State's submission. It noted that for carrying out the diagnostic procedures and Ultra Sonogram/Ultrasound techniques, the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act will prevail over the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments Act.
Case Title: Yuvaraj v Additional Superintendent of Police and other (batch cases)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
The Madras High Court has upheld the life imprisonment of eight accused in the Gokul Raj murder case. The court altered the charges against two other accused to imprisonment of five years.
The division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the prosecution had proved the chain of circumstances that had led to the murder of Gokulraj by the accused persons.
23. Madras High Court Quashes Notification Banning Import Of Dogs For Commercial Activities
Case Title: The Kennel Club of India and others v. The Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a notification issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade imposing a ban on import of dogs in the country for commercial breeding or other commercial activities.
“The absolute ban now imposed is on the basis that import of dogs for commercial breeding will bring foreign diseases to India as well as contaminate native gene pool. As far as import of alien diseases is concerned, there are effective measures for quarantine and testing of the animals prior to permitting entry into India. Thus, this can be no reason to justify the ban,” Justice Anita Sumanth said.
The court observed that the impugned notification has no legs to stand and that the alleged deliberations of the concerned ministries who were involved in the impugned ban are stated to have been destroyed.
Case Title: Kannaian Naidu and others v Kamsala Ammal and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 172
In a significant verdict, the Madras High Court recently held that a wife, who contributed to the acquisition of family assets by performing the household chores, would be entitled to an equal share in the properties, as she had indirectly contributed to its purchase.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that though there was no legislation at present that recognized the contribution made by the wife, the court could very well recognize the same. The Court added that the law does not prevent a Judge from recognizing the contributions.
The court agreed with the wife's submission that she had contributed to the family by taking care of the household and the children. The court noted that the wife, though did not make direct financial contributions, had played a vital role in managing the household chores by looking after the children, cooking, cleaning and managing day-to-day affairs of the family without giving any inconvenience to the plaintiff abroad and moreover, she sacrificed her dreams and spent her entire life towards the family and children.
25. Caste Has No Role To Play In Appointment Of Temple Priests: Madras High Court
Case Title: Muthu Subramania Gurukkal v The Commissioner, HR&CE Department and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
The Madras High Court has reiterated that while appointing Archakas to a temple, the caste has no role to play when the person otherwise fulfills all the requirements.
The court added that in temples governed by the Agama, the Trustees/Fit Person only have to ensure that the Archaka/Sthanikam to be appointed is well-versed and properly trained to perform the pooja as per the Agama.
Justice Anand Venkatesh made the above observations on a plea filed by Muthu Subramania Gurukkal challenging an advertisement issued by the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE, and the Executive Officer of Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, calling for applications to fill up the position of Archakas/Sthanikam at Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, Salem.
Case Title: S Kumar v The District Collector and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
The Madras High Court has ruled that there is no embargo in bringing police personnel under the ambit of “authorised officer” under Sections 21,22 and 23-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957. The full bench was hearing a reference made with respect to queries relating the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder and also various Government Orders issued based on the Act.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan, Justice M Dhandapani and Justice K Murali Shankar noted that two Government Order issued by the State in 2006 and 2009 respectively, granting the police personnel powers to carry out seizure of vehicles under the act is not illegal and such seizure is within the law.
Case Title: Amalraj v State and Another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
The Madras High Court has ruled that non-payment of maintenance amount is a breach of protection order under Section 18 of the Act and registration of an FIR on that ground is lawful.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai bench observed that Section 31 of the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act was enacted to ensure social justice and to regulate the violator of a protection order. The court called the provision a life-saving medicine by treating failure of remittance of maintenance as an offence and crime.
The court also disagreed with a reasoning of the Kerala High Court that such wide interpretation of Section 31 would lead to over-flooding of courts, and opined that flooding of courts would only signify that the people have faith in the judiciary which is a good sign for the judiciary.
Case Title: S. Ve. Shekher v Al. Gopalsamy and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
The Madras High Court has recently refused to quash batch of criminal proceedings initiated against actor and BJP politician S.Ve Sheker for his derogatory remarks against women journalists. The cases were registered after Sheker had forwarded an abusive, derogatory and vulgar comment on his Facebook account in April 2018.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that Shekher was a person of high stature with many followers and he ought to have exercised more caution while forwarding messages.
The court added that we live in an era where social media has virtually taken over every individual's life where each message can reach the nook and corner of the world in no time. The court added that we were no suffering from “virtual diarrhoea” where we were bombarded with messages. Thus, the court added that every person must exercise social responsibility while creating or forwarding a message.
Case Title: Megala v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
Settling conflicting views regarding the power of the Enforcement Directorate to seek police custody of the accused, the Madras High Court ruled that the central agency was entitled to seek the custody of Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji in the money laundering case over the alleged cash-for-jobs scam.
Justice CV Karthikeyan, the third judge to whom the matter was referred to following a split in the division bench of Justices Nisha Banu and Bharatha Chakravarthy, ruled in favour of the ED.
Deciding a habeas corpus petition filed by Balaji's wife Megala, Justice Banu had held that Enforcement Directorate is not entrusted with the powers to seek police custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Differing from this opinion, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy had held that the Habeas Corpus Petition is not maintainable and the ED was entitled to police custody of the accused.
Now, Justice Karthikeyan has endorsed the view of Justice Chakravarthy by saying : "The fact that respondents(ED) can take custody for further investigation cannot be denied. The respondent, in this case, had a right to get custody. I would align my opinion with the reason given by Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy in this aspect".
Case Title: Habeeb Mohamed v. The Home Secretary and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
In a notable judgment, the Madras High Court observed that while right to vote is only a statutory right, the right to seek vote is a fundamental right as democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution. The court thus observed that any person who was causing disturbance to the conduct of rallies, meetings etc for seeking votes, was committing an electoral offence.
Justice GR Swaminathan held that the right to campaign was directly traceable to Article 19(1) (a), (b) and (d) of the Constitution and is derivable from the right to freedom of speech and expression, right to assemble peacefully and to move freely throughout the country.
Case Title: Matrimony.Com Ltd v Alphabet Inc and others (and connected cases)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Madras High Court has dismissed a majority of pleas filed by Indian startups against Google's new user choice billing system. A total of 14 out of 16 petitions have been dismissed. The two remaining petitions filed by Disney+Hotstar and Testbook are pending.
Dismissing the petitions, Justice S Sounthar on August 3 said that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India and that the remedy available under the Competition Act is much more comprehensive than that available before a civil court. The court added that the pleas are barred by Section 61 of the Competition Act which expressly forbids civil courts from hearing any lawsuit or action that the Commission is authorised to decide.
Case Title: Lois Sophia @ Layis Shobia v. Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
The Madras High Court has quashed an FIR lodged against Lois Sofia, arrested for raising slogans against the BJP government on board a flight in the presence of former Tamil Nadu BJP president and current Governor of Telangana and Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry Tamilisai Soundararajan.
Justice P Dhanapal of the Madurai bench has ordered quashing the proceedings against the research scholar.
In September 2018, Sofia, a research scholar from Canada was arrested after she shouted “fascist BJP government down, down” on board a flight in the presence of Tamil Nadu BJP president Tamilisai Soundararajan who filed a complaint.
Case title - B. Saravanan vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli and others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Granting relief to a State Police officer against whom a 'desertion' order was passed by his department on account of his absence from service (as he had to take care of his wife who was expecting a child), the Madras High Court has emphasised the need for paternity leave legislation in India.
Highlighting the importance of the role of both, a father and a mother during the prenatal care and post-natal care days of a child, the Court observed that because of the challenges of nuclear families, it is high time for the policymakers to "recognise the right to paternity leave/parental leave" to the biological/adoptive parents as the basic human right of the respective prenatal/post natal child.
A bench comprising Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed thus while holding that the right to protection of life guaranteed to every child by Articles 21 and 15(3) of the Constitution of India "culminates" in the fundamental human right of the biological parents/adopting parents seeking maternity/paternity/parental leave.
Case Titile: O Paneerselvam v All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by expelled AIADMK leaders seeking a stay on the operation of the General Council resolutions by which they were dismissed from the party.
The appeals were preferred by O. Panneerselvam, P.H. Manoj Pandian, R. Vaithilingam, and J.C.D. Prabhakhar against a single judge order rejecting their application against the party resolution dated July 11 2022 by which they were removed.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that after going through the impugned resolutions, it did not find any prima facie case for a grant of relief as claimed. The court noted that it did not find any reason to interfere with the convening of the General Council or the resolutions by which the appellants were expelled from the party and the ones through which the post of General Secretary was revived.
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.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
Case Title: Mohamed Dayan v The District Collector and Others
The Madras High Court has observed that the phrase “subject to condition” employed in Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has to be understood holistically to mean an implied condition to maintain the senior citizen.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the phrase subject to condition should not be understood to mean that the Gift or Settlement Deed should contain an express condition but an implied condition, and any violation of the condition would be sufficient to invoke the provisions of the Act.
The court added that “Love and Affection” was an implied condition and had to be construed as the consideration for executing the Gift or Settlement Deed. The court also observed that the provisions of the Act could not be mis-utilised for rejecting a compliant by a senior citizen merely on the ground that there was no express condition.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
Case Title: Elangovan v The Secretary, Home Department
The Madras High Court on Friday observed that “Sanadhana Dharma” is a set of eternal duties including duty to the nation, duty to the King, Duty to parents and Gurus, etc. and in that context, opposition to Sanadhana Dharma would have to mean that all these duties were liable to be destroyed.
Justice N Seshasayee was hearing a challenge against a Circular issued by the Principal of Thiru Vi. Ka. Government Arts College requesting the girl students in the college to share their views on the topic “Opposition to Sanadhana” on the occasion of commemorating birth anniversary of former Tamil Nadu CM Annadurai.
The court also noted that presently the idea that had been appearing was that Sanadhana Dharma is all about promoting casteism and untouchability. The court emphasised that untouchability, which has been abolished under Article 15 of the Constitution should not be tolerated even within or outside Sanadhana Dharma.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
Case Title: District Collector, Tirunelveli v Prakash
In a special Sunday sitting, a division bench of the Madras High Court has stayed an order of a single judge allowing the sale of Ganesh idols made using Plaster of Paris.
However, a division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy has now stayed the order.
The bench relied upon orders of the National Green Tribunal and a division bench order upholding the guidelines of the Pollution Control Board and noted that these guidelines were applicable in the State even in the absence of specific rules by the State Government.
The bench also opined that the order of the Single Judge could not be sustained as every Vinayaka idol that was worshipped had to be immersed. The bench emphasized that idols were traditionally made using clay and added that the prohibition was only with respect to the use of Plaster of Paris.
Though it was argued that such prohibition would cause financial hardship to the artisans, the court rejected this argument and opined that the loss would be less since there was only a day left for the festival
Case Title: P Arunachalam(Died) and Others v The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Madras High Court on Friday (September 29) dismissed the appeals preferred by 126 forest officials, 84 police personnel and 5 revenue officials against their convictions and sentence for various crimes that took place in Vachathi, in Dharmapuri District of Tamil Nadu. Coincidentally, the Sessions Court judgment finding the accused guilty was also passed on September 29 in the year 2011.
Justice P Velmurugan called for stringent action against the then District Collector, District Forest Officer, and the Superintendent of Police.
The bench also directed the state to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakh each to the rape victims, of which 50% was to be recovered from the accused who were convicted for the offence of rape. The court also directed the state to give suitable employment to the victims whose houses were destroyed by the officials.
Case Title: The Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed College for Women (Autonomous) v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
The Madras High Court recently observed that the policy of reservation for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes cannot be implemented in Minority educational institutions.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu relied on the precedents laid down by the Supreme Court and reiterated that the exclusion of Minority Institutions from the ambit of Article 15(5), which empowers the state to make provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward communities, is not violative of Article 14 as minority institutions are a separate class.
Case Title: Raja Desingu v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
While directing the police authorities in the State to grant permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to carry out route marches, the Madras High Court observed that the State's decision to deny permission in the first instance was against the secular and constitutional principles in the State.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that the state had denied permission to RSS by merely stating that there were other structures and places of worship in the intended route which was against the constitutional principle of Secularism.
Case Title: Magesh Karthikeyan v The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
While denying permission to conduct a meeting to eradicate “Dravidian Ideology”, the Madras High Court recently observed that no one had a right to propagate divise ideas and conduct meetings to abolish or eradicate any ideology. The court added that co-existence of multiple ideologies was the identity of the country.
Talking about the recent meetings held for eradicating “Sanatana Dharma”, Justice G Jayachandran added that the failure of police to take any action against Ministers and members of the ruling party who had made inflammatory speeches was a dereliction of duty.
The court also added that a person in power should be aware of the ability of speech to divide people and must behave responsibly and restrain themselves from propagating such views. The court instead suggested that such persons could concentrate on eradicating other social evils like intoxicating drinks, drugs etc.
43. TN Law Regulating Online Games Won't Apply To Games Of Skill Like Poker & Rummy : Madras High Court
Case Title: All India Gaming Federation v State and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
The Madras High Court upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act 2022. The court, however, added that the Act would not be applicable to games like rummy and poker, which were games of skill and will be applicable only against games of chance.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu thus partly allowed an application filed by the online gaming companies challenging the Act. The online gaming companies had challenged the Act, which came into effect on April 21. Earlier, an attempt was made to challenge the ordinance, but the court allowed the parties to withdraw the same as the Act was yet to be notified.
The court said that while it could not allow the prayer to set aside the Act in its entirety, the provisions of the Act should be restricted to games of chance. The court added that games like rummy and poker were games of skill and thus, the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to these games. The court also observed that while the government could regulate the games by restricting the time spent playing the game, setting age-limits etc on both games of skill and chance, it could not totally ban games of skill.
Case Title: Sushma v State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
The Madras High Court has suggested the state to consider coming up with a procedure for registering the Deed of Familial Association, recognizing the civil union entered into between LGBTQAI+ partners in order to protect the fundamental rights of persons forming part of this community.
Justice Anand Venkatesh gave the suggestion in a plea filed by one Prasanna intervening in the ongoing hearing wherein the court has been passing a series of directions in an attempt to remove the stigma associated with the community and to ensure the welfare of the members of the community. The purport of this Deed, as suggested by the petitioner, is to ensure that two persons will have the right to live in a relationship.
The court, after looking into the recent Supreme Court verdict in Supriyo's case, noted that the Apex Court had clearly recognised the right to choice of two persons to have and live in a relationship and their right to protection and also their right not to be harassed. The court further observed that the “Deed of Familial Association” would only safeguard the rights that were already guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution.
45. 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: 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: 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.
Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) v Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a plea moved by Kerala State Road Transport Corporation against the registration of the word mark “KSRTC” by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that as per Section 33 of the Trade Marks Act, Kerala SRTC had acquiesced in the use of the mark by the Karnataka SRTC. Similarly, relying on Sub Section (2) of Section 33, the court added that Karnataka SRTC was not entitled to oppose the use of the earlier mark by Kerala SRTC. Thus, the court asked both the Public Sector undertakings to co-exist peacefully and continue their businesses.
Case Title: State v K Ponmudi and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
The Madras High Court has sentenced Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudi and his wife Visalakshi to three year simple imprisonment and 50 lakh fine each in a disproportionate asset case.
Justice G Jayachandran gave 30 days to the parties to surrender and added that the parties could work out their remedies before the Supreme Court during this time. The court also said that any decision on an extension of the time would be considered later if the couple could not work out their remedies before the Apex Court. The court also remarked that if it was any other ministry the matter would have been different but the Minister had committed the offence being in charge of the Ministry of Higher Education which affected the future generation also.
On Tuesday, the court had set aside the acquittal of the Minister and his wife finding them guilty of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. With this order convicting the Minister under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Ponmudi will be disqualified as a legislator under Section 8 of the Representation of People Act 1951.
Case Title: PK Mukmuthu Sha v PS Mohammed Afrin Banu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 410
The Madras High Court recently observed that although Islamic Law allowed a husband to have polygamous marriages, he was obligated to treat all the wives equally.
The bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji thus confirmed a family court order allowing dissolution of marriage finding that the husband had treated the wife with cruelty by not treating her on par and equally with the second wife.
