Madras High Court Monthly Digest: January 2022

A monthly round up of important cases and judgments from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.1. Liquor Consumption In Clubs & Associations Require Valid Licenses, Cannot Act Beyond The Scope Of Registered Bye-Laws: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s.The Kancheepuram Reading Room and Tennis Club, Represented by its Secretary v. The Director-General of Police & Ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 Madras High Court has recently rejected the relief sought by a Club to forbear the insisting upon obtaining FL2 License for allowing its members to consume liquor (bought from government-approved shops) inside the Club premises. Justice S.M Subramaniam held that Clubs registered under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act with its bye-laws also registered under the provisions of the Act must strictly follow the objects and purpose already set out in the bye laws. When alcohol consumption is beyond the scope of the bye-laws of the petitioner club, it must be r/w Rules relating to the grant of licenses in Chapter IV of The Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules, 1981, which makes it abundantly clear that the Club cannot allow its members to consume alcohol in its premises without FL.2 License and an amendment to the existing bye-laws. F.L.2 license is stipulated for 'license for possession of liquor by a non-proprietary Club for supply to members' in the Rules. Even for consumption of liquor in a Club or Association, a license must be obtained for the possession of liquor and for supply to its members inside the premises, the court added. 2. Madras University Losing Its Reputation Rapidly, Erring Officials Must Be Dismissed From Service': High Court Case Title: The University of Madras, Rep. By its Registrar v. Dr. S. Bhaskaran & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 2 The Madras High Court recently expressed its dismay over the rapidly declining reputation of the Madras University, and observed that disciplinary proceedings must be instituted against errant officials for not maintaining absolute integrity and devotion to duty. The remarks were made by a division bench of Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice A.A. Nakkiran after it noted irregularity in the process for appointment of Assistant Librarians in the University. The Court observed that the University has flouted the regulations by regarding the disputed post as promotional. The bench observed that UGC Regulations and the Standing Regulations of the University of Madras does not treat it as a promotional post and it could have been filled only through Direct recruitment as per the then existing service conditions. It noted that technical wing and library wing are completely different as per the Rules, and Assistant Librarian is the Feeder Category that can be filled only through direct recruitment. 3. 'Right To Relax Can't Be Curbed Fearing Breach Of Morality': Madras HC Disagrees With Another Bench's Direction To Install CCTVs In Spas Case Title: Payel Biswas v. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 3 While considering a writ petition filed for obtaining a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Police for running a cross-massage centre, the Madras High Cour has also analysed a recent single judge bench order for the installation of CCTV cameras inside Spa and Massage Centres. The court observed in clear terms that mere apprehension about a breach of morality cannot be a valid ground to curb the right to relax, which is a part and parcel of the right to privacy. Referring to the landmark decision in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, (2018) 10 SCC 1, the single judge bench pointed out that 'constitutional morality shall trump public morality'. Justice G.R Swaminathan primarily relied on Puttaswamy judgment (K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1) that elaborates about the different facets of right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21. These forms of the right to privacy are i) a right to bodily autonomy, ii) a right to informational privacy and iii) a right to a privacy of choice. "The installation of CCTV equipment inside premises such as a spa would unquestionably infract upon a person's bodily autonomy, These are inviolable spaces where the prying eye of the state simply cannot be allowed to enter" the court held. The court was referring to the order passed by Justice S.M Subramaniam in C P Girija v. Superintendent of Police & Ors. dated 20th December, 2021. In the said order, the bench directed the installation of functional CCTV cameras in all spas, massage centres, therapy centres etc. in the State of Tamil Nadu. It was also directed by the court that secluded or closed rooms for conducting business activities must be avoided in spas and massage centers. 4. No 'Public Purpose' For Veda Nilayam Acquisition And Conversion To Memorial: Madras High ...

Madras High Court Monthly Digest: January 2022

Sebin James

Tags