Madras HC : 2019 Highlights

Even a deity encroaching public property has to be dealt with, in accordance with law. Single Bench of the Madras High Court, Justice SM Subramaniam, observed that a large number of temples on the public roads, government poramboke areas, water bodies and water resources are being constructed by land mafias and greedy men for their personal gains and for unlawful enrichment, to grab the land or for personal unlawful enrichment. The court said that such temples on roadsides are constructed without obtaining proper permission from the competent authorities and is causing inconvenience to vehicular traffic and passers-by. The court also observed that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department should not encourage such an attitude of the people in respect of construction of temples by encroaching the public lands and the public roads. (Case : W.P.No. 27748 of 2005, order dated 04 January 2019) Cross-Gender massages are not prohibited in spa. Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court observed that the police have no legal right to prevent a health spa being operated by anyone even if the therapy is done by persons of one sex to those belonging to the opposite sex. The court made this observation while quashing cases filed against spa therapists and owners of health spa in the state. Kadek Dwo Ani Rasmini, an Indonesian lady, professionally trained and qualified spa therapist, had approached the high court against the police action of keeping her in custody for nearly 26 days in the Vigilance Home. She alleged that the local police conducted a raid at her spa centre and took her away along with four other spa therapists and were placed under custody in Vigilance Home. The court remarked, "Every foreign national who comes into this country, should be treated like an ambassador of the concerned country. They carry with them their opinions and impressions about our country. Therefore treating them with utmost respect, will enhance the image of this country around the world." (Case : Ms. Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmi v. Mr. K. Natarajan, W.P Nos. 29995 & 31320 of 2018, order dated 02 January 2019) A non-lawyer can make submissions in the court with permission. Justice N Anand Venkatesh, while upholding Magistrate's order rejecting remand of Nakkeeran Gopal who was charged under section 124 of IPC for publishing fake/derogatory news about the Governor of Tamil Nadu in a bi-weekly Tamil magazine, observed that there was nothing wrong in calling upon senior journalist N Ram to get his opinion. In his report to the high court, the Magistrate stated that he was under the bonafide impression that he is entitled to call for such opinion in view of provisions available under Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Rule 69 of the Criminal Rules of practice. Taking into consideration the report, and also referring to Section 32 of the Advocates Act, the court observed that the court has the power to permit any person not enrolled as an advocate to put forth his submissions before a court whenever called for by the court. (Case : State v. Tr. Nakeeran Gopal, Crl. OP No. 26888 of 2018 and Crl. MP No. 15519 of 2018, order dated 07 January 2019) 4. Madras HC rules in favour of pregnant police aspirant, says participation in running test a sign of courage. Noting that taking a physical examination test during pregnancy is itself a "sign of courage", the Madras High Court has ordered the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Recruitment Board (TNURB) to select a woman as a Constable despite her having failed the physical efficiency test. In doing so, Justice S. Vimala emphasized on the need for a change in mindset to eliminate consideration of pregnancy and childbirth as an impediment in the discharge of duty. The court was hearing a petition filed by one R. Devika, who had failed the physical efficiency test for recruitment as a Grade II Police Constable. She had finished the 100 Mts running test in 18.20 seconds, 30 seconds more than the maximum time of 17.50 seconds provided. She demanded leniency, submitting that she was eight weeks pregnant at the time of the test. The Special Government Pleader, on the other hand, had challenged the petition, submitting that allowing such deviations from the norm would open flood gates for other disqualified candidates and would hamper the recruitment process. The authorities were then directed to select Devika for employment as Grade II Police Constable / Grade - II Jail Warden, as on October 31, 2018, with all attendant benefits. If further intensive physical training is required, it shall be postponed till her maternity leave is over, it added. (Case : R. Devika v. The Chairman (TNURB), WP No. 30538 of 2018 & WMP No. 35631 of 2018, order dated 07 January 2019) 5. Madras HC directs Registry uploads orders or judgements soon after judges sign...

Madras HC : 2019 Highlights

Arabhi Anandan

Tags