Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 29 To June 4

A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court. Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 152 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 159 NOMINAL INDEX Tamil Nadu Ayush Sonologist Association v. The Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 152 Rajini v The Superintendent of Police and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 153 E Anna Yesudhas v The District Collector, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 154 Vadivel and others v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 155 Vediyappan v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 156 Salem District Nature and Environment Protection Society v. Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 157 Theeran Thirumurugan v. Union of India and others, 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 158 Yuvaraj v Additional Superintendent of Police and other (batch cases), 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 159 REPORTS AYUSH Doctors Can't Perform Ultrasound Techniques On Pregnant Women Without Specialised Qualification Under PC-PNDT Act: Madras High Court 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. Normally Wouldn't Interfere With Probe But Can't Turn Blind Eye To Police Harassment Happening Under Guise Of Investigation: Madras High Court Case Title: Rajini v The Superintendent of Police and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 153 The Madras High Court recently observed that though courts normally do not interfere with the investigation carried out by police officers, it would also not turn a blind eye to instances of harassment by police under the guise of investigation. Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup was dealing with a plea filed by one Rajini contending that the police were harassing her under the guise of an enquiry/investigation. The police authorities, on the other hand, submitted that a notice under Section 41A of CrPC was issued to the petitioner based on a complaint and pending enquiry. The court noted that though the Magistrate is a guardian of all stages of police investigation, he does not have the power to interfere in the actual investigation. The court added that this has led to numerous cases of police harassment. ‘When There Are Several Grown Trees, It Would Not Be A Wise Thing To Cut Them Down For Sake Of Constructing A Building’: Madras High Court Case Title: E Anna Yesudhas v The District Collector Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 154 The Madras High Court recently emphasized that the State must take steps for trees in this age of climate change. The court said that felling of trees for the construction of the building was not a wise decision. Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench was hearing a petition by Anna Yesudhas challenging the decision of Kanyakumari District Authorities to cut down trees for facilitating the construction of a new Panchayat building. Punishment Without Proper Identification Directly Impinges Personal Liberty: Madras High Court Sets Aside Conviction In Robbery Case Case Title: Vadivel and others v State Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 155 While setting aside the conviction of a man charged for robbery, the Madras High Court emphasised on the need for Test Identification Parade. The court highlighted that punishing a person without proper identification will directly impinge his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Anand Venkatesh added that courts should not be swayed by emotions and must ensure that the accused persons are properly identified. The court also noted that in many cases, the police officers usually show a habitual criminal as the accused as it was convenient. The court observed against this line of investigation and said that just because a person is a habitual criminal, he cannot not be held responsible for every crime that took place in the society. This attitude, according to the court, will cause a dent in the criminal justice system and will make the officers ineffective. Courts Should Be Guided By Legal Evidence, Not Moral Conviction & Hypothetical Propositions: Madras High Court Case Title: Vediyappan v State Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 156 While setting aside the conviction of a man for the offence of acid attack and house...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 29 To June 4

Upasana Sajeev

Tags