Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 26 - March 03, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

The State v I Periyasamy, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 83

Krishapriya Foundation v The Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 84

Union of India v The Deputy Director, UIDAI, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 85

S Lakshmipathy v The State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 86

V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 87

ABC v XYZ, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 88

The Secretary to Government and Others v Regina, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 89

Suthendraraja T @ Santhan v The Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 90

J Sheena v. TNPSC, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 91

M/s.Indralok Hotel Pvt. Ltd. versus The Greater Chennai Corporation, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 92

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

Karthick v Registrar General, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

REPORT

Public Confidence Will Be Shaken If Ministers And MLAs Facing Corruption Case Short-Circuit Criminal Trial: Madras High Court

Case Title: The State v I Periyasamy

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 83

While setting aside the discharge of Tamil Nadu Rural Development Minister I Periyasamy in a corruption case, the Madras High Court on Monday observed that the constitutional courts were duty bound to ensure that the legitimacy of the administration of justice is not eroded by allowing a minister or MLA to short circuit the trial in corruption cases against them.

Justice Anand Venkatesh also observed that the trial court order discharging Periyasamy was manifestly illegal and that the trial judge had committed grave procedural impropriety which necessitated the court's intervention. The court added that once the trial had commenced, the discharge petition filed by Periyasamy was not maintainable and the trial court had committed an error by entertaining it and allowing it.

38 One-Stop Centres For Women Affected By Violence Will Be Made Functional Soon: Centre Informs Madras High Court

Case Title: Krishapriya Foundation v The Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 84

The Madras High Court was recently informed that the Central Government has approved 38 One Stop Centres in the State of Tamil Nadu of which only eight One Stop Centres were pending construction. One Stop Centres (OSC) are intended to support women affected by violence, in private and public spaces, within the family, community and at the workplace.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a plea seeking to draw up a scheme for establishing counselling centres in each police station in the state of Tamil Nadu.

Madras High Court Directs UIDAI To Provide Aadhaar Details Of Murder-Accused PFI Member, Says Details Necessary For NIA's Probe

Case Title: Union of India v The Deputy Director, UIDAI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 85

The Madras High Court has recently directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to provide Aadhar details of some PFI members who have been accused of murdering a man and striking terror.

Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the National Investigation Agency could proceed with the investigation only after obtaining the details and thus directed UIDAI to furnish the details sought by the agency.

DGP Has No Power To Order Further Investigation That Too By Transferring Probe From One Agency To Another: Madras High Court

Case Title: S Lakshmipathy v The State and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 86

The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Director General of Police transferring the investigation in a case from the state police to the Crime Branch of CID. The court held that the DGP had no powers to order for fresh investigation by transferring the trial to another agency and that the order was legally not sustainable.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that only a court could order for fresh investigation or re-investigation and by filing a new FIR in the guise of conducting further investigation, the DGP and the CB-CID had played with the court. The court added that what had prompted the DGP to suo motu order transfer of investigation was a “million dollaw question”.

Madras High Court Denies Bail To Former Minister Senthil Balaji In Money Laundering Case, Directs Trial Be Completed In 3 Months

Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 87

The Madras High Court has dismissed the bail plea of MLA and former Minister Senthil Balaji. Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June last year in a cash-for-jobs money laundering case.

Justice Anand Venkatesh on Wednesday observed that there were no merits in the bail plea filed by Balaji. However, considering that Balaji had been incarcerated for more than 8 months, the court directed the Special court to complete the trial in the case within 3 months.

ALSO READ: Under PMLA, Jail Is The Rule And Bail Is The Exception: Madras High Court In Senthil Balaji's Plea

Marital Relationship Not Worth Saving When It Has Become Worthless & Deadwood, Both Parties Engaged In Abuse & Cruelty: Madras High Court

Case Title: ABC v XYZ

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 88

The Madras High Court has recently observed that when husband and wife were engaged in a war of words, abuse and vulgar criticism of family members, there was no point in saving such a marital relationship as the marital tie would have become worthless and deadwood.

Justice G Jayachandran and Justice C Kumarappan were hearing a challenge against an order from the Family Court refusing to dissolve the marriage between the parties. The court, after going through the exchanges between the parties, which were bordering vulgarity and obscenity, noted that the marriage was bound to be dissolved. The court observed that the cruelty committed by the parties against each other had injured the marital bond.

State Cannot Question Minority Institution's Discretion To Run School With 2 Students, But Has Authority To Decline Grant: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Secretary to Government and Others v Regina

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 89

The Madras High Court recently observed that though neither the Court nor the State have any authority to question the discretion of a minority school to run with just two students, the State does have the authority and right to decline public grant to such school.

The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice C Kumarappan added that an institution, just because of its minority status could not manage their affairs contrary to the instructions of the Government.

Madras High Court Directs State To Appoint Nodal Officers To Ensure Mortal Remains Of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Convict Are Flown To Sri Lanka

Case Title: Suthendraraja T @ Santhan v The Secretary and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 90

The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Government to appoint senior IAS and IPS officers to ensure that the mortal remains of T Suthenthiraraj alias Santhan, one of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case is taken to Sri Lanka.

When the matter was taken up previously, the Government had informed the court that the Deputy High Commissioner for Sri Lanka had issued a temporary travel document allowing Santhan to go to Sri Lanka.

On Thursday, the bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice K Kumaresh Babu wondered why Santhan was not permitted to go to Sri Lanka despite the exit permit. The court also called for Santhan's medical reports to determine his medical conditions.

The court directed the state to expediate the process and asked the state to coordinate with the High Commission and expedite the process.

Madras High Court Directs TNPSC To Cancel Provisional Selection List For 245 Civil Judges, Says Reservation Rules Not Followed

Case Title: J Sheena v. TNPSC

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 91

The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to cancel the provisional list for the recruitment of 245 civil judges in the State.

Asking the TNPSC to prepare a revised provisional list within two weeks, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that the impugned provisional list was prepared without applying Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conditions of Service Act 2016.

The court agreed with the petitioners and held that the methodology adopted by the Commission was in violation of the scope of Section 27(f) and the interpretation of the Apex Court. The court also said that this erroneous application had resulted in denial of opportunity to other candidates, who would have been otherwise eligible either under the general category or the reserved category.

Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act Mandates 15 days' Time To Be Provided To Property Tax Assessee To Respond To Notice: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Indralok Hotel Pvt. Ltd. versus The Greater Chennai Corporation

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 92

The Madras High Court has held that Section 116A of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, mandates that 15 days' time should be provided to the property tax assessee to respond to the notice before action is taken.

The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has directed the respondent department to de-seal the restaurant.

The petitioner/assessee has assailed a demand notice that was affixed to the premises of the petitioner. The half-yearly property tax in respect of the Pride Hotel was fixed by the Taxation Appeals Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 11,63,702 with effect from the second half of 2006–07. The order was carried out on appeal by the Greater Chennai Corporation before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

AO's Classification Of Harpic And Lizol Under 28% GST Slab Rate Is Without Application Of Mind: Madras High Court

Case Title: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited Versus State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

The Madras High Court has held that Ao's classification of Harpic and Lizol under the 28% GST slab rate is without application of mind.

The bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that when objections are raised, a duty is cast on the assessing authority to apply its mind to the objections and deal with each one of them. Failure to do so would vitiate the order of assessment on the ground of non-application of mind.

Courts Need To Strike Balance Between Individuals' Right To Be Forgotten And Citizens' Right To Know: Madras High Court

Case Title: Karthick v Registrar General

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

The Madras High Court recently emphasized that though the courts were expected to preserve data as a court of record, it was also required to strike a balance between the collection of such data and the protection of a person's personnel data.

The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice R Vijayakumar observed that while the courts were expected to possess data, it was the courts discretion to make such data publicly available and such a decision had to be taken consciously and carefully. the bench also observed that the courts could not be compelled to make any information publicly available under the RTI Act.

The court added that the open justice system has brought justice and dispensation of justice to the doorstep of citizens. However, the court added that privacy was an inalienable facet of the right to life and dignity, and thus the courts had to strike a balance between the concept of open justice and the privacy of the litigant. The court also noted that institutions committed to serving justice, the courts could not close their eyes to privacy concerns and a litigant's right to leave behind his past.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

“Would You Have Conducted Further Investigation For Ordinary Person?”: Madras HC Asks IO In Suo Motu Revision Against Acquittal Of Minister Thangam Thenarasu

While hearing the Suo Motu revision against the acquittal of Tamil Nadu Finance Minister Thangam Thenarasu in a corruption case, the Madras High Court on Thursday interrogated the Investigation Officer who had conducted further investigation and filed the final closure report leading to the acquittal of the Minister.

Justice Anand Venkatesh interrogated the Investigating Officer Bhoominathan in open court and asked him if he had filed a similar final closure report in the past 7 years that he had been dealing with corruption cases. When the IO answered that this was the only case in which he had filed such a report, the judge wondered what prompted the officer to take up such further investigation.