Madras High Court Judgments On Citizens' Rights & Constitutional Freedoms In 2021

In the year 2021, there were many instances where Madras High Court placed constitutional freedoms and citizens' rights on a higher threshold. LiveLaw lists out those instances for our readers below. 1. 'Right To Be Funny Can Be Mined In Article 19(1)(a)' : Madras High Court Quashes FIR Over Humorous Facebook Post [Mathivanan v. Inspector of Police & Ors.] While quashing an FIR registered against an office-bearer of CPI (ML) who uploaded vacation pictures with the caption 'Trip to Sirumalai for shooting practice', the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court went on to make some interesting observations about the 'duty to laugh' and the 'right to be funny'. Justice G.R Swaminathan quashed the FIR against the 62-year-old accused while underscoring that the case registered by Vadipatty Police, booking the latter for 'making preparations to wage war against the State', is 'absurd and an abuse of legal process'. The Court went on to observe that the correlative right to be funny can be "mined in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India".Justice GR Swaminathan wrote in the FIR quashing order as below:"Jug Suraiya, Bachi Karkaria, E.P.Unny and G.Sampath...if any satirist or cartoonist had authored this judgement, they would have proposed a momentous amendment to the Constitution of India to incorporate sub-clause (l) in Article 51-A…. To this, the hypothetical author would have added one more fundamental duty - duty to laugh." 2. Right To Default Bail Not Extinguished With 'Simultaneous' Filing Of Chargesheet: Madras High Court [ K. Muthuirul v. The Inspector Of Police] In a pertinent ruling, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has delved deep into the statutory provisions and precedents that determine the four corners of default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC and Section 36(A)(4) of NDPS Act. Justice K. Murali Shankar has held that subsequent or even simultaneous filing of the charge sheet does not disentitle an accused from claiming default bail under CrPC. The Bench observed that there is a misconception that in cases where the bail petition under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C and the charge sheet are being filed on the same day, then the time at which, bail petition or the charge sheet is filed, is the deciding factor and that if the charge sheet is filed earlier to the bail petition, then the accused is not entitled to get the statutory bail or in case, if the bail petition is filed before laying of charge sheet, then the bail application has to be allowed. 3. Delay In Producing Accused Arrested Through PT Warrant Before Court Is Violative Of His Fundamental Right Under Article 21: Madras High Court [M. Kishore v. Inspector Of Police] The court observed that the purpose of a Prisoner on Transit Warrant (P.T. warrant) is only to direct the production of a person confined or detained in a prison through a lawful order and such a warrant cannot be interpreted to mean that the same will authorize the Police to curtail the liberty of a person by keeping the accused person in custody till he is produced before the concerned Court. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the delay in producing the accused person before the Court after a formal arrest through a Prisoner on Transit Warrant would violate the liberty guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. "Where the investigating officer decides to arrest the accused person through a formal arrest, the accused person does not come into the physical custody of the police and for the purpose of calculating the period of 60 days or 90 days as contemplated under the proviso to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., it can be computed only from the date of detention as per the orders of the Magistrate and not from the date of formal arrest by the Police. A P.T. Warrant cannot be used for the purpose of keeping a person in detention without producing him before the concerned Court and such non-production will certainly curtail the liberty of a person", observed the court. 4. Coercive Application Of IT Rules Against Intermediaries Violates Article 19(1)(a); Oversight Mechanism Robs Media Of Independence : Madras High Court's Prima Facie View [Digital News Publishers Association v. Union of India and other connected matters] The Court observed that the Bombay High Court's order dated August 14, 2021 staying the operation of sub-rules (1) and (3) of Rule 9 of the recently notified Information Technology (Guidelines for intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules 2021) ought to have a pan-India effect. Sub-rules (1) and (3) of Rule 9 mandate adherence to the Code of Ethics which is annexed to the IT Rules, 2021 and provide for a three-tier structure for addressing the grievances made in relation to publishers. Accordingly, the Bench opined, "There is substantial basis to the petitioners' assertion that Article 19 (1) (a)...

Madras High Court Judgments On Citizens' Rights & Constitutional Freedoms In 2021

Sebin James

Tags