Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 31 to November 6, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 448 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 455 NOMINAL INDEX Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s MAC Public Charitable Trust (batch), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 448 S Mukanchand Bothra (Died) and another v. The Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 449 Senthil Balaji v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 450 Prasanna Gunasundari v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 451 K Kala v Secretary, Education Department and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 452 V Vijay and another v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 453 R Karthikeyan v. K Phanindra Reddy IAS, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 454 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. The National Commission for Scheduled Caste and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 455 REPORT 1. Education Not Commercial Activity, Collection Of Capitation Fee For Admission Illegal, No Tax Exemption: Madras High Court Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s MAC Public Charitable Trust (batch) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 448 The Madras High Court on Monday deprecated the practice of receiving capitation fee in exchange of admissions. The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that such practice of receiving capitation fee is against the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992. It is therefore beyond the pale of any doubt that education can never be a commercial activity or a trade or business and those in the field of education will have to constantly and consistently abide by this guiding principle. However, the undeniable reality staring at our face is the collection of capitation fee as a condition precedent for admission into educational institutions. 2. Failure To Act Upon Complaints Against Govt Officials Unconstitutional, Causes No Confidence In Public Authorities: Madras High Court Case Title: S Mukanchand Bothra (Died) and another v. The Chief Secretary and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 449 The Madras High Court came down heavily on public authorities delaying action upon complaints by citizens against government officials. The court was hearing a plea by a man who had given a complaint to the Chief Secretary against an officer in 2016. When the complaint was not acted upon, he approached the court. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam observed that failure of public authorities take action upon complaints would result in people's "no confidence" in the public authorities. Further, such inaction/omission was also unconstitutional and authorities had to ensure that such delay does not arise in the future. 3. [Cash-For-Job Scam] Madras High Court Refuses To Discharge Minister Senthil Balaji, Orders Fresh Enquiry Case Title: Senthil Balaji v State Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 450 Madras High Court has ordered a fresh enquiry into the cash-for-job scam, a case involving irregularities in the appointment in State Transport Corporation. Justice V Sivagnanam observed that there were irregularities in the investigation conducted by the investigating agency as the agency had failed to include certain crucial aspects. The court also dismissed the discharge petitions filed by the Electricity Minister Senthil Balaji, stating that the case impacts the society. The court also noted that there were materials against the Minister and there was no infirmity in framing of charge by the court below. 4. DGP Entertaining 'Mercy Petitions' Against Departmental Action Is Unconstitutional: Madras High Court Case Title: Prasanna Gunasundari v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 451 The Madras High Court recently observed that the power to entertain mercy petition of any convicted person under any law to which the executive power of the State extends is only available to the Governor of the State. Thus, the office of the Director General of Police (DGP) has no statutory power to entertain mercy petitions against orders passed in departmental action. Such an exercise of power by the DGP is thus in violation of the Indian Constitution. The court noted that the exercise of jurisdiction by authorities in excess of their jurisdiction would result in colorable exercise of power. 5. Blaming School Authorities For Student's Suicide Without Evidence Not Right, Parents Also Responsible To Monitor Child's Mental Health: Madras HC Case Title: K Kala v Secretary, Education Department and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 452 The Madras High Court criticized the recent trend of parents implicating school authorities and teachers whenever a school student commits suicide. Justice SM Subramaniam noted that teachers and headmasters could be made liable only if there was sufficient evidence regarding their...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 31 to November 6, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags