Significant Judgments Of Madras High Court In 2020

Constitutional Rights 1. "Article 21 Includes Right To Have A Decent Burial": Madras HC Takes Cognizance On Mob Attack Against Burial Of Doctor Died Of COVID-19 In the backdrop of disruption during the burial of a doctor who succumbed to a heart attack after acquiring COVID infection, the High Court expressed concern over the incident and emphasized that the Right to burial is a Fundamental Right, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. "In the considered opinion of the Court the scope and ambit of Article 21 includes, right to have a decent burial. It prima facie appears that as a consequence of above said alleged acts, a person who practiced a noble profession as a doctor and breathed his last, has been deprived of his right, to have a burial, in a cemetery earmarked for that purpose and that apart, on account of law and order and public order problem created, the officials who have performed their duties, appeared have sustained grievous injuries", observed the Division Bench of Justice M. Sathyanarayanan and Justice M. Nirmal Kumar. It referred to the Kharak Singh case of 1963 whereby the Apex Court had considered the purview of Article 21 and said, "...The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body or amputation of an arm or leg or the putting out of an eye or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world ... Moreover it is every kind of deprivation that is hit by Article 21, whether such deprivation be permanent or temporary..." [Case: Suo Moto v. State of Tamil Nadu] 2. 'Revealing Identity Of Covid Patients Will Definitely Lead To Social Stigma': Madras HC A division bench comprising of Justice M. Sathyanarayanan and Justice M. Nirmal Kumar disposed of a petition seeking to reveal the identity of the COVID-19 affected persons while observing that the same may further aggravate the "social stigma" being attached to the victims. The Court in this case was concerned with the privacy and dignity of Covid-patients, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. [Case: K. Narayanan v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu] 3. 'Article 47 Of Constitution Is Not An Enforceable Right': Madras HC Dismisses Plea For Total Prohibition Of Manufacture, Sale & Consumption Of Alcohol While holding that Article 47 of the Constitution apropos state's responsibility to prohibiting the consumption of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health, is not an "enforceable provision", the division bench of Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari and Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana dismissed a writ petition seeking absolute ban on manufacture, sale and consumption of alcohol in the state of Tamil Nadu. The Court observed that Article 47 of the Constitution of India is not an enforceable right of the petitioner and therefore, it does not give rise or any cause of action of the petitioner to seek any Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It further said that opening or reopening of the State liquor shops is a matter of State policy, and the Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction. [Case: R. Dhanasekaran v. Got. Of Tamil Nadu & Ors.] 4. Non-Payment Of Subsistence Allowance To An Employee During Suspension Will Be Antithetical To Article 21 While encompassing the payment of subsistence allowance to a suspended employee under Article 21 of the Constitution, the High Court held that its non-payment shall violate the Fundamental Right of such employee. A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad emphasized that subsistence allowance cannot be denied to employee(s) during the tenure of their suspension. "The underlying principle for making payment of subsistence allowance is to allow an individual to sustain himself. In the present context of the suspension of an employee, one has to keep in mind that services of an employee have not been snapped and the employer-employee relationship during suspension continues to subsist," the Bench observed. It further emphasized, "To "subsist" means to manage to stay alive, especially with limited resources or money. The state of living as such is known as subsistence, which is indicative of the fact that one has enough resources to sustain life with basic minimum needs. This means of existence or continuance with meagre resources of livelihood for a salaried employee is known as a subsistence allowance, which is an advance payment to cover immediate living expenses while being kept away from service. It is, therefore, an income that is sufficient to provide bare necessities and is an adequacy of support that exists as a reality while undergoing a compulsory distress. The idea is to preserve sustenance at the minimum economic level to sustain...

Significant Judgments Of Madras High Court In 2020

Akshita Saxena

Tags