Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 21 - October 27, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 390 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 406 NOMINAL INDEX A Shankar and Another v RS Bharathi, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 390 Veera Bharathi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 391 G.Shrilakshmi v Anirudh Ramkumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 392 P. Ananda Kumar v The Director General of Police (Prison) and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 393 S Porkodi v The Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 394 Ahmed Mansoor and Others v The State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 395 N. Manoharan v G Sivakumar and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 396 The Management v. R. Parthiban, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 397 Himanshu Pathak v Ministry of Electronics and Information and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 398 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Offshore Infrastructures Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 399 MRB Nurses Empowerment Association v. The Principal Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 400 Rev.Fr.Savarimuthu and Others v V.S.Jeyapandi, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 401 The Director, Directorate of Medical Education and Research and Others v Jubil Timothy and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 402 The Regional Officer, NHAI v K Vasuki and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 403 S.Harikumar v The Presiding Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 404 M/s Challani Rank Jewellery and Others v Ashok Kumar Jain, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 405 Mr.Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M.Appavu v RM Babu Murugavel, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 406 REPORT "Judges Can't Hide Behind Curtains": Madras HC Dismisses Savukku Shankar's Contempt Plea Against DMK Leader For Alleged Comments On Sitting Judge Case Title: A Shankar and Another v RS Bharathi Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 390 The Madras High Court, on Friday, dismissed a contempt petition filed by YouTuber Savukku Shankar against DMK Organisation Secretary RS Bharathi for the latter's comment against Justice N Anand Venkatesh. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam noted that Justice Venkatesh himself had expressed that he did not want to initiate contempt proceedings. The court also noted that the Advocate General had refused to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Bharathi. The court remarked that citizens were free to access and criticize the conduct of those holding public office. The bench added that transparency was the foundation of the judiciary and that judges could not hide behind curtains. Governor Bound By Cabinet's Recommendation On Premature Release Of Life Convict: Madras High Court Case Title: Veera Bharathi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 391 The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Governor of a State is bound by the decision of the State Cabinet with respect to the recommendations regarding the premature release of convicts. Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam observed that the power under Article 161 to is to be exercised by the State Government and not the Governor on his own. The bench added that the Governor was bound by the advice of the appropriate Government. The court added that the Tamil Nadu government had issued a Government Order in G.O.(Ms). No.430, Home (Prison-IV) Department setting out the eligibility criteria for premature release of life convicts. The court noted that this GO was statutory in nature as it was passed under Section 432 of the CrPC giving power to the State to suspend or remit sentences. The court thus held that the power of remission under Article 161 was to be exercised by the State Government and the Governor was bound by the decision of the State. Family Courts Should Not Insist On Physical Presence Of Parties While Presenting Petition And For Future Hearings: Madras High Court Case Title: G.Shrilakshmi v Anirudh Ramkumar Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 392 In a significant decision, the Madras High Court has held that the Family Courts should not insist on the physical presence of the parties/spouses at the time of presenting the petition and for future hearings. Justice M Nirmal Kumar observed that virtual proceedings provided an opportunity to modernize the system and make it more affordable and citizen-friendly. The court thus held that family courts should make use of the video conferencing facilities without insisting on the physical presence of the parties and should not raise technical objections by insisting on the physical presence at any stage. The court noted that Section 530 of the BNSS emphasized holding even criminal trials through electronic mode. The court added that recently, the justice dispensation system has seen much advancement in the use of technology, and the family court's insistence on physical presence would defeat the very purpose of the video conferencing facility. Mutual Respect Between Lawyers And Prison Authorities Paramount To Vindicate Grievances Of Prisoners: Madras High...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 21 - October 27, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags