Madras High Court: Yearly Digest 2021

LiveLaw brings you a list of important cases, orders and judgments from the Madras High Court that caught our eyes in 2021. The Yearly Digest is segregated into different topics for the reader's ease.Bail Matters & Quashing FIRs 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". 2. "Criticism A Democratic Right, Part & Parcel Of Free Society": Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Kamal Haasan For 'Mahabharat' Comment [Kamal Haasan v. Aadinath Sundaram] Noting that criticism is not only the human right, but also democratic right upon which the democracy thrives and society evolves to a new desired polity, a Bench of Justice G. Ilangovan quashed a criminal case lodged against actor and politician Kamal Haasan over a comment he made in the year 2017. The Court specifically observed that criticism is part and parcel of the free society. The private complainant alleged that he watched a programme in March 2017, on Puthiya Talaimurai TV Channel, wherein, the host of the show, put a specific question on the increasing violence against women in India, more particularly against women in the Cine Field to Kamal Haasan. 3. 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. 4. 'Tablighi Jamaat Can't Be Equated With Islam': Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against YouTuber Maridhas [Maridhas v. State & Anr.] The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) quashed yet another FIR registered against YouTuber Maridhas over his YouTube Video criticizing the Tablighi Jamaat conference of March 2020 during the COVID first wave. A Single Judge Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed that none of the ingredients of alleged offences in the FIR has been made out by the Prosecution. About the video uploaded by Maridhas on his YouTube Channel, the court noted that he was merely expressing his views as a public commentator about an event that was undoubtedly characterized as a 'super spreader'. While making the relevant remarks, the court also added that the petitioner accused was entitled to protection under Article 19(1)(a). He had relied solely on the news sources available in the public domain about the congregation. 5. Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Electricity Minister Senthil Balaji In Job Recruitment Scam After Victims Enter Into A Settlement [Shanmugam v. The Inspector of Police and Anr] The Court has quashed a 2018 cheating case against incumbent State Electricity Minister and DMK MLA Senthil Balaji filed in relation to allegations of a 2014 recruitment scam since all thirteen alleged victims had compromised the issue and wanted the case to be quashed. The case pertained to alleged irregularities in recruitment when Mr. Senthilbalaji was the Transport Minister in the AIADMK led government. 6. "Showing Protest Is Hallmark Of Democracy": Madras HC Quashes Sedition Case Against Two For Distributing Hand Bills In 2018 Anti-Sterlite Protest [M.Vinayagar v. State & Anr.] The Court observed that showing protest, being a fundamental right, is a hallmark of democracy. It quashed criminal case against two persons booked under sedition for ...

Madras High Court: Yearly Digest 2021

Sebin James

Tags