In order to put an end to the exploitation of elephants by temples and private owners for joyrides or as beasts of burden, the Madras High Court has sought a uniform policy. It states that all elephants - privately owned or temple owned must come under the care of the Forest Department &nbsp;and that future private ownership of elephants must be completely prohibited.&nbsp;

The First Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy had passed the order in response to a petition of a devotee, who pointed out ill-treatment of elephants at the Srirangam temple.&nbsp;

Rangarajan Narasimhan, the petitioner had stated the plight of Andal, an elephant that had been separated from its mahout (primary caretaker of captive elephant) of nearly 27 years, as the mahout was removed from service without any notice. It also cites that Section 4(4) of TN Elephant Rules, which mentions that a captive elephant is to be maintained by the same mahout and cavady (mahout’s assistant) for its entire lifespan, was flouted.&nbsp;

According to the petition, the original caretaker was appointed as a watchman in another temple, following which the elephant was handed over to a caretaker who had resorted to inhuman tactics to bring the elephant under his control. “One of the very many ways is to drug the elephant with illegal substances” it states. It is mentioned that though the said elephant is hardly aged 49, it’s condition is like an elephant aged 89, owing to the abuse.&nbsp;

“The government and temple authorities guard the elephant as if she is a convict in jail, not allowing public to have a look, in order to hide the sufferings of the elephant. No CCTV camera is available in a temple that earns over Rs.100Cr every year from devotees’ offerings”. The petition adds that this is done o purpose to enable the cavady to beat up the elephant in order to tame her.&nbsp;

In its order, the first bench said, “Any kind of mistreatment of elephants and other animals must be dealt with promptly and as mercilessly as such persons deal with the animals”. It added that exploitation of animals for all purposes should be stopped except for limited government controlled exercises say, horse-riding or camel-riding on the beach, but even those cannot be privately operated since the treatment of the animals cannot be checked or monitored.&nbsp;

The Court has provided eight weeks time for the Government to come up with a comprehensive policy and guidelines to be framed. It was also stated that experts could be consulted, rehabilitation of elephants lured away from forests maybe taken up and measures be put in place to prevent further exploitation.

In order to put an end to the exploitation of elephants by temples and private owners for joyrides or as beasts of burden, the Madras High Court has sought a uniform policy.

In order to put an end to the exploitation of elephants by temples and private owners for joyrides or as beasts of burden, the Madras High Court has sought a uniform policy. It states that all elephants - privately owned or temple owned must come under the care of the Forest Department and that future private ownership of elephants must be completely prohibited. The First Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy had passed the order in response to a petition of a devotee, who pointed out ill-treatment of elephants at the Srirangam temple. Rangarajan Narasimhan, the petitioner had stated the plight of Andal, an elephant that had been separated from its mahout (primary caretaker of captive elephant) of nearly 27 years, as the mahout was removed from service without any notice. It also cites that Section 4(4) of TN Elephant Rules, which mentions that a captive elephant is to be maintained by the same mahout and cavady (mahout’s assistant) for its entire lifespan, was flouted. According to the petition, the original caretaker was appointed as a watchman in another temple, following which the elephant was handed over to a caretaker who had resorted to inhuman tactics to bring the elephant under his control. “One of the very many ways is to drug the elephant with illegal substances” it states. It is mentioned that though the said elephant is hardly aged 49, it’s condition is like an elephant aged 89, owing to the abuse. “The government and temple authorities guard the elephant as if she is a convict in jail, not allowing public to have a look, in order to hide the sufferings of the elephant. No CCTV camera is available in a temple that earns over Rs.100Cr every year from devotees’ offerings”. The petition adds that this is done o purpose to enable the cavady to beat up the elephant in order to tame her. In its order, the first bench said, “Any kind of mistreatment of elephants and other animals must be dealt with promptly and as mercilessly as such persons deal with the animals”. It added that exploitation of animals for all purposes should be stopped except for limited government controlled exercises say, horse-riding or camel-riding on the beach, but even those cannot be privately operated since the treatment of the animals cannot be checked or monitored. The Court has provided eight weeks time for the Government to come up with a comprehensive policy and guidelines to be framed. It was also stated that experts could be consulted, rehabilitation of elephants lured away from forests maybe taken up and measures be put in place to prevent further exploitation.

Madras High Court asks Tamil Nadu government to form policy on ownership of elephants

Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has ordered that all elephant death cases in Tamil Nadu be probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), with the assistance of the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB). Justices MM Sundaresh and Sathish Kumar passed the order in response to two Public Interest Litigations that sought action against perpetrators of wildlife crimes, poaching and suspicious deaths.&nbsp;

One of the PILs was filed by advocate Manoj Immanuel, and it was regarding the 7 suspicious elephant deaths in Meghamalai, Tamil Nadu in 2018. According to the petitioner’s counsel Alagumani and Lajapathi Roy, though the deaths were said to be caused by electrocution, they were suspected to be poaching cases and such deaths went on unabated.&nbsp;

Advocate Alagumani told Zee Media that they had also cited news reports on poachers (arrested in Kerala) having confessed about their elephant poaching activities in Tamil Nadu forests. In response to their 2018 case, the Court had earlier ordered the WCCB to provide a report. The WCCB filed in 2019 stated that there was a big gang involved in these elephant poaching cases and that there were powerful kingpins operating behind.

In the latest case, the Court observed that elephants were an important part of the wild ecosystem and that their deaths were not isolated incidents, but are of a trans-boundary nature. The judges mentioned the importance of preventing poaching and aiding conservation efforts. It was stated that elephant deaths were not just limited to few specific forest areas and that the perpetrators belonged to various states, hence necessitating a CBI probe to ensure that the kingpins are nabbed.

Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has ordered that all elephant death cases in Tamil Nadu be probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), with the assistance of the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB).

Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has ordered that all elephant death cases in Tamil Nadu be probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), with the assistance of the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB). Justices MM Sundaresh and Sathish Kumar passed the order in response to two Public Interest Litigations that sought action against perpetrators of wildlife crimes, poaching and suspicious deaths. One of the PILs was filed by advocate Manoj Immanuel, and it was regarding the 7 suspicious elephant deaths in Meghamalai, Tamil Nadu in 2018. According to the petitioner’s counsel Alagumani and Lajapathi Roy, though the deaths were said to be caused by electrocution, they were suspected to be poaching cases and such deaths went on unabated. Advocate Alagumani told Zee Media that they had also cited news reports on poachers (arrested in Kerala) having confessed about their elephant poaching activities in Tamil Nadu forests. In response to their 2018 case, the Court had earlier ordered the WCCB to provide a report. The WCCB filed in 2019 stated that there was a big gang involved in these elephant poaching cases and that there were powerful kingpins operating behind. In the latest case, the Court observed that elephants were an important part of the wild ecosystem and that their deaths were not isolated incidents, but are of a trans-boundary nature. The judges mentioned the importance of preventing poaching and aiding conservation efforts. It was stated that elephant deaths were not just limited to few specific forest areas and that the perpetrators belonged to various states, hence necessitating a CBI probe to ensure that the kingpins are nabbed.

Elephant deaths in Tamil Nadu to be probed by CBI, orders Madras High Court

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has ordered notice to the Central, State Governments, Google, RBI among other institutions regarding the spate in cases of Online money lending at high interest rates via mobile apps. Bench of Justices MM Sundaresh and S Anandi had remarked that foreign money circulating without RBI permission, the methods of recovering the loans represented a sorry state of affairs.&nbsp;

The Public Interest Litigation(PIL) filed by lawyer S.Muthu Kumar highlighted the manner in which people were falling prey to online lending/loan apps, that charge a very high interest rate, that too without any approvals from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). It added that the apps were being uploaded and downloaded from the Google Play Store without background verification regarding their RBI approvals.

Representing the petitioner, advocate A.Kannan pointed out that advertisements of such apps appeared while using smartphones and instigated users to avail instant loans. When the debtor fails to repay the loan within the prescribed time the tele-callers of the money lending company and their henchmen will start their continuous verbal and physical abuse, which drives the debtor to end their life.&nbsp;

“The recovery teams of such instant money lenders are insulting the debtor by circulating their picture in WhatsApp groups showing them as a “defaulter" which is nothing but infringing the rights of privacy and dignity as enshrined in the Constitution of India” read the PIL, mentioning instances of individuals having been forced to take the extreme step.&nbsp;

The PIL appealed to the Court to pass an order restraining Google from hosting online money lending apps which seek exorbitant interest rates, without prior permission from the RBI. It also sought the intervention of the Government authorities to ban instant loan apps available in the Google play store and other websites. It was also pointed out that a special team must be forced to investigate the shell companies providing digital money lending, where Indian nationals are Directors and Chinese companies are promoting them.&nbsp;

The case is expected to be taken up for hearing on February 3rd.

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has ordered notice to the Central, State Governments, Google, RBI among other institutions regarding the spate in cases of Online money lending at high interest rates via mobile apps.

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has ordered notice to the Central, State Governments, Google, RBI among other institutions regarding the spate in cases of Online money lending at high interest rates via mobile apps. Bench of Justices MM Sundaresh and S Anandi had remarked that foreign money circulating without RBI permission, the methods of recovering the loans represented a sorry state of affairs. The Public Interest Litigation(PIL) filed by lawyer S.Muthu Kumar highlighted the manner in which people were falling prey to online lending/loan apps, that charge a very high interest rate, that too without any approvals from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). It added that the apps were being uploaded and downloaded from the Google Play Store without background verification regarding their RBI approvals. Representing the petitioner, advocate A.Kannan pointed out that advertisements of such apps appeared while using smartphones and instigated users to avail instant loans. When the debtor fails to repay the loan within the prescribed time the tele-callers of the money lending company and their henchmen will start their continuous verbal and physical abuse, which drives the debtor to end their life. “The recovery teams of such instant money lenders are insulting the debtor by circulating their picture in WhatsApp groups showing them as a “defaulter" which is nothing but infringing the rights of privacy and dignity as enshrined in the Constitution of India” read the PIL, mentioning instances of individuals having been forced to take the extreme step. The PIL appealed to the Court to pass an order restraining Google from hosting online money lending apps which seek exorbitant interest rates, without prior permission from the RBI. It also sought the intervention of the Government authorities to ban instant loan apps available in the Google play store and other websites. It was also pointed out that a special team must be forced to investigate the shell companies providing digital money lending, where Indian nationals are Directors and Chinese companies are promoting them. The case is expected to be taken up for hearing on February 3rd.

PIL in Madras High Court seeks ban on Instant Money lending apps sans RBI permit 

Many celebrities including Indian cricket team captain Virat Kohli and BCCI president Sourav Ganguly have been served with notices from Madras High Court for endorsing fantasy sports apps.

Actors like Prakash Raj, Tammana, Rana and Sudip Khan are also asked to respond to notices served by the Madurai bench by November 19.&nbsp;

The case was filed by Advocate Mohammed Rizvi after some youth died by suicide in the Southern state after losing money in such apps. &nbsp; &nbsp; 
"The apps are in the name of IPL teams such as Chennai Super Kings (CSK), Rajasthan Royals (RR) and some apps are also in the name of state’s names. Are these teams playing on behalf of the state," asked the bench.

According to the bench, the owners of these apps of using celebrities for the sake of earning crores.&nbsp;

RCB skipper Virat Kohli is the Brand Ambassador of Mobile Premier League (MPL), whereas, Sourav Ganguly has been in the ads for My11Circle.

According to some reports, MPL has also bagged a three-year sponsorship deal for the Indian cricket team's kit and will replace sports giant Nike who was associated with BCCI since 2006.

Many celebrities including Indian cricket team captain Virat Kohli and BCCI president Sourav Ganguly have been served with notices from Madras High Court for endorsing fantasy sports apps.

Many celebrities including Indian cricket team captain Virat Kohli and BCCI president Sourav Ganguly have been served with notices from Madras High Court for endorsing fantasy sports apps. Actors like Prakash Raj, Tammana, Rana and Sudip Khan are also asked to respond to notices served by the Madurai bench by November 19. The case was filed by Advocate Mohammed Rizvi after some youth died by suicide in the Southern state after losing money in such apps. "The apps are in the name of IPL teams such as Chennai Super Kings (CSK), Rajasthan Royals (RR) and some apps are also in the name of state’s names. Are these teams playing on behalf of the state," asked the bench. According to the bench, the owners of these apps of using celebrities for the sake of earning crores. RCB skipper Virat Kohli is the Brand Ambassador of Mobile Premier League (MPL), whereas, Sourav Ganguly has been in the ads for My11Circle. According to some reports, MPL has also bagged a three-year sponsorship deal for the Indian cricket team's kit and will replace sports giant Nike who was associated with BCCI since 2006.

Madras High Court sends notice to Kohli and Ganguly for endorsing fantasy leagues apps

The Madras High Court has expressed apprehension about India’s over-dependence on ’hostile neighbor’ China, when it comes to the import of Active Pharmaceutical ingredients (API).

This observation was made on the grounds that it hinders the nation’s response to security and other breaches by the neighbor. APIs are the ingredients in the medicine that play the major role of acting upon the illness. While India, which is regarded a pioneer in pharmaceuticals, does not import medicines per se, the country imports APIs, which are the crucial ingredient in the drugs’ manufacture.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/mysterious-covid-19-vaccine-chinas-cry-of-help-for-friendship-334123">Also read|&nbsp;Mysterious COVID-19 vaccine: China's cry of help for friendship</a>

At one stage, even the National Security Advisor (NSA) has cautioned the Government of the danger to our national security on account of this excess import dependence from a single nation” the Court said. It is said that China is also the global leader in the production and export of APIs, which is enabled by government support and lower costs on various fronts.

The Court notes that the economic advantage of importing APIs from China has led to India losing its scientific-edge and self-reliance in APIs. It is said that China is able to sell their APIs to India at 25% of the cost that it would take to manufacture in India. “As a result, our country that had once built 99.7% self-reliance in APIs went on to import over 90% of its API requirements from China”, the Court said. “At one stage, even the National Security Advisor (‘NSA’) has cautioned the Government of the danger to our national security on account of this excess import dependence from a single nation” it added.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-to-join-covax-when-will-un-hold-china-responsible-for-its-actions-334138">Also read|&nbsp;China to join COVAX: When will UN hold China responsible for its actions?</a>

Fearsome prospects of Indian patients having to consume sub-standard drugs or go without medicines, in case of escalation of tensions with China were also mentioned by the Court, in view of the Galwan clashes.&nbsp;

The court made the observations while ordering that a five-member committee be set-up to ensure the enabling of a private company Vinkem Labs Ltd to become a global player that can bring in foreign exchange and also ensure India’s self-reliance in cancer drugs.

In an issued on September 30, 2020, the Court said that a committee must be formed within eight weeks to facilitate requirements of Vinkem Labs including fiscal and regulatory for R&amp;D, commercialization, industry development, regulatory compliances, technology infusion, exports, domestic supply and others.

The proposed committee is meant to have a member each from Union Ministry of Pharmaceuticals and Finance Ministry not below Joint Secretary rank, Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of Tamil Nadu, one member from Bank of India and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) not below the rank of Senior General Manager and N.L.Rajah, the amicus curiae appointed by the court.

The court monitored Committee is also required to remove delays and difficulties, including funding requirements of Vinkem Labs with necessary recommendations to the banks.

The Madras High Court has expressed apprehension about India’s over-dependence on ’hostile neighbor’ China, when it comes to the import of Active Pharmaceutical ingredients (API).

The Madras High Court has expressed apprehension about India’s over-dependence on ’hostile neighbor’ China, when it comes to the import of Active Pharmaceutical ingredients (API). This observation was made on the grounds that it hinders the nation’s response to security and other breaches by the neighbor. APIs are the ingredients in the medicine that play the major role of acting upon the illness. While India, which is regarded a pioneer in pharmaceuticals, does not import medicines per se, the country imports APIs, which are the crucial ingredient in the drugs’ manufacture. Also read| Mysterious COVID-19 vaccine: China's cry of help for friendship At one stage, even the National Security Advisor (NSA) has cautioned the Government of the danger to our national security on account of this excess import dependence from a single nation” the Court said. It is said that China is also the global leader in the production and export of APIs, which is enabled by government support and lower costs on various fronts. The Court notes that the economic advantage of importing APIs from China has led to India losing its scientific-edge and self-reliance in APIs. It is said that China is able to sell their APIs to India at 25% of the cost that it would take to manufacture in India. “As a result, our country that had once built 99.7% self-reliance in APIs went on to import over 90% of its API requirements from China”, the Court said. “At one stage, even the National Security Advisor (‘NSA’) has cautioned the Government of the danger to our national security on account of this excess import dependence from a single nation” it added. Also read| China to join COVAX: When will UN hold China responsible for its actions? Fearsome prospects of Indian patients having to consume sub-standard drugs or go without medicines, in case of escalation of tensions with China were also mentioned by the Court, in view of the Galwan clashes. The court made the observations while ordering that a five-member committee be set-up to ensure the enabling of a private company Vinkem Labs Ltd to become a global player that can bring in foreign exchange and also ensure India’s self-reliance in cancer drugs. In an issued on September 30, 2020, the Court said that a committee must be formed within eight weeks to facilitate requirements of Vinkem Labs including fiscal and regulatory for R&D, commercialization, industry development, regulatory compliances, technology infusion, exports, domestic supply and others. The proposed committee is meant to have a member each from Union Ministry of Pharmaceuticals and Finance Ministry not below Joint Secretary rank, Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of Tamil Nadu, one member from Bank of India and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) not below the rank of Senior General Manager and N.L.Rajah, the amicus curiae appointed by the court. The court monitored Committee is also required to remove delays and difficulties, including funding requirements of Vinkem Labs with necessary recommendations to the banks.

Madras High court raises concern over India’s over-dependence on Chinese pharma ingredients

Hearing a case calling for the shutdown of online gambling sites and applications, a bench of the Madras High Court observed that online games were not only spoiling youth, but also young children.&nbsp;

The court mentioned that children were getting addicted towards dangerous, violent games and playing them in the wee hours of the day, which would impact them adversely. The case has been adjourned for September 29 for the state government to file their response.&nbsp;

Bench of Justices MM Sundaresh and Hemalatha pointed out that parents are in the dark about the late-night gaming habits of their children, adding that even a police constable in Tamil Nadu had to take the extreme step owing to his gambling addiction that had gone beyond control. Justice MM Sundaresh said that youngsters must not blindly follow matinee idols and celebrities&nbsp;to the extent of doing whatever they are asked to do.&nbsp;

Justice Hemalatha questioned the government counsel on why no action is taken against the abettors, pointing out that the authorities arrest the poor, whereas there is no action taken against the influential persons whoa re promoting such activities.&nbsp;

In late August, A senior advocate A.P.Suryaprakasam filed a plea in the Madras High Court seeking a ban on online gambling, and the arrest, prosecution of those running these sites and the famous personalities who endorse them. The plea points out that gambling is a criminal offence in India and that there has been a recent spurt in suicides among youth in Tamil Nadu after they suffered heavy losses in online gambling. This plea had sought the response of the central government (Ministry of Communications)and the state government (home department).

An official from the Department of Telecommunications(DoT) had responded to the plea on behalf of the central government. He stated that the DoT is not empowered to suo-motu direct the blocking of website URLs, but can only direct the Internet service providers to do the same, under instructions from the Court or the Ministry of Electronics and IT. It was stated that the decisions and directions for blocking websites is issued by Group Coordinator, Cyber Law Division, under the Information Technology Act, 2000.&nbsp;

The petitioner had compared online gambling to the blue whale challenge game that led to many youths ending their lives, calling it "a menace to society".&nbsp;

“Youngsters are being hooked to this online gambling addiction by the organizers by providing huge cash bonus. It uses the famous cricket and film personalities including cricketers like Virat Kohli and actress Tamannah who brainwash these young with their powerful appeal to join this game,” the petition states.&nbsp;

It adds that the youth start playing it as a timepass, which further leads to addiction, following which they borrow money from lenders at high-interest rates. After they reach a point where they sustain heavy losses and fail to repay, they end their lives.&nbsp;

“This gambling addiction is more dangerous to the society and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as it infringes the right to life. Hence this writ petition seeking ban” reads the plea.

In July, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court had observed that the Central and State government’s could pass laws that ban games that involve money such as Online Rummy, other online card games across India.&nbsp;

The court drew a parallel to the Telangana government Ordinance amending the Telangana Gaming Act 1974 banning online Rummy. This meant that users playing real cash games from the state are prohibited from doing so.

Hearing a case calling for the shutdown of online gambling sites and applications, a bench of the Madras High Court observed that online games were not only spoiling youth, but also young children.

Hearing a case calling for the shutdown of online gambling sites and applications, a bench of the Madras High Court observed that online games were not only spoiling youth, but also young children. The court mentioned that children were getting addicted towards dangerous, violent games and playing them in the wee hours of the day, which would impact them adversely. The case has been adjourned for September 29 for the state government to file their response. Bench of Justices MM Sundaresh and Hemalatha pointed out that parents are in the dark about the late-night gaming habits of their children, adding that even a police constable in Tamil Nadu had to take the extreme step owing to his gambling addiction that had gone beyond control. Justice MM Sundaresh said that youngsters must not blindly follow matinee idols and celebrities to the extent of doing whatever they are asked to do. Justice Hemalatha questioned the government counsel on why no action is taken against the abettors, pointing out that the authorities arrest the poor, whereas there is no action taken against the influential persons whoa re promoting such activities. In late August, A senior advocate A.P.Suryaprakasam filed a plea in the Madras High Court seeking a ban on online gambling, and the arrest, prosecution of those running these sites and the famous personalities who endorse them. The plea points out that gambling is a criminal offence in India and that there has been a recent spurt in suicides among youth in Tamil Nadu after they suffered heavy losses in online gambling. This plea had sought the response of the central government (Ministry of Communications)and the state government (home department). An official from the Department of Telecommunications(DoT) had responded to the plea on behalf of the central government. He stated that the DoT is not empowered to suo-motu direct the blocking of website URLs, but can only direct the Internet service providers to do the same, under instructions from the Court or the Ministry of Electronics and IT. It was stated that the decisions and directions for blocking websites is issued by Group Coordinator, Cyber Law Division, under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner had compared online gambling to the blue whale challenge game that led to many youths ending their lives, calling it "a menace to society". “Youngsters are being hooked to this online gambling addiction by the organizers by providing huge cash bonus. It uses the famous cricket and film personalities including cricketers like Virat Kohli and actress Tamannah who brainwash these young with their powerful appeal to join this game,” the petition states. It adds that the youth start playing it as a timepass, which further leads to addiction, following which they borrow money from lenders at high-interest rates. After they reach a point where they sustain heavy losses and fail to repay, they end their lives. “This gambling addiction is more dangerous to the society and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as it infringes the right to life. Hence this writ petition seeking ban” reads the plea. In July, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court had observed that the Central and State government’s could pass laws that ban games that involve money such as Online Rummy, other online card games across India. The court drew a parallel to the Telangana government Ordinance amending the Telangana Gaming Act 1974 banning online Rummy. This meant that users playing real cash games from the state are prohibited from doing so.

Madras High Court seeks Tamil Nadu govt's response over possible ban on online gambling, violent games

Former judges of the Madras High Court have urged the Chief Justice(CJ) to ‘not take seriously’ the comments made by actor Suriya on the recent student suicides in the state, connected with the NEET Exam. The former judges have requested the CJ to not take cognizance of the complaint so that the court is rid of unnecessary controversies.&nbsp; This comes after, Justice SM Subramaniam, a judge of the Madras High Court had written to the Chief Justice, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against actor Suriya.

In a statement in Tamil, Suriya had expressed grief over the separate instances where three students from humble backgrounds had ended their lives due to fear and pressure ahead of the medical entrance test. The actor pointed out that it was painful that students are having to write exams to prove their eligibility at the time of a deadly pandemic.

“While Fearing for their lives amid Coronavirus pandemic and delivering justice via video conferencing, the Court orders students to go without fear and write the exams” read one of the lines in the actor’s statement. It is this line that had come to the attention of the judge, which led to him seeking initiation of contempt proceedings.

In his letter to the Chief Justice, the judge mentioned that, “the statement reveals that the Hon’ble Judges are afraid of their own life and rendering justice through video conferencing. While so, they have no morale to pass orders directing the students to appear for NEET exam without fear”.

Justice Subramaniam opined that the statement amounts to Contempt of Court, as it questioned the integrity and devotion of the judges and the judicial system of the country, to the extent of threatening the public confidence in the judiciary.

The actor’s statement urged society to raise a collective voice against NEET, which burns down the aspirations of children from humble backgrounds who wish to be doctors. He had also termed NEET as a ‘Manu Neethi test’, claiming that it denies students opportunities and also takes away their lives. Suriya had also cautioned parents and teachers to be alert and pay more attention to the education system which does not consider the welfare of students.

In their letter, the former judges pointed out the good social work done by the actor via his Trust in providing higher education and placements for hundreds of poor students. “We should show generosity and magnanimity in leaving the matter without any cognizance” said a portion of the statement signed by Retd. Justice K Chandru, on behalf of five former Judges.

Former judges of the Madras High Court have urged the Chief Justice(CJ) to ‘not take seriously’ the comments made by actor Suriya on the recent student suicides in the state, connected with the NEET Exam.

Former judges of the Madras High Court have urged the Chief Justice(CJ) to ‘not take seriously’ the comments made by actor Suriya on the recent student suicides in the state, connected with the NEET Exam. The former judges have requested the CJ to not take cognizance of the complaint so that the court is rid of unnecessary controversies. This comes after, Justice SM Subramaniam, a judge of the Madras High Court had written to the Chief Justice, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against actor Suriya. In a statement in Tamil, Suriya had expressed grief over the separate instances where three students from humble backgrounds had ended their lives due to fear and pressure ahead of the medical entrance test. The actor pointed out that it was painful that students are having to write exams to prove their eligibility at the time of a deadly pandemic. “While Fearing for their lives amid Coronavirus pandemic and delivering justice via video conferencing, the Court orders students to go without fear and write the exams” read one of the lines in the actor’s statement. It is this line that had come to the attention of the judge, which led to him seeking initiation of contempt proceedings. In his letter to the Chief Justice, the judge mentioned that, “the statement reveals that the Hon’ble Judges are afraid of their own life and rendering justice through video conferencing. While so, they have no morale to pass orders directing the students to appear for NEET exam without fear”. Justice Subramaniam opined that the statement amounts to Contempt of Court, as it questioned the integrity and devotion of the judges and the judicial system of the country, to the extent of threatening the public confidence in the judiciary. The actor’s statement urged society to raise a collective voice against NEET, which burns down the aspirations of children from humble backgrounds who wish to be doctors. He had also termed NEET as a ‘Manu Neethi test’, claiming that it denies students opportunities and also takes away their lives. Suriya had also cautioned parents and teachers to be alert and pay more attention to the education system which does not consider the welfare of students. In their letter, the former judges pointed out the good social work done by the actor via his Trust in providing higher education and placements for hundreds of poor students. “We should show generosity and magnanimity in leaving the matter without any cognizance” said a portion of the statement signed by Retd. Justice K Chandru, on behalf of five former Judges.

Former judges back actor Suriya’s social work as Madras HC judge seeks contempt proceedings against him

Justices TS Sivagnanam and V Bhavani Subbaroyan of the Madras High Court refused to allow the re-opening of Vedanta-owned, Sterlite Copper Smelter plant, in Tamil Nadu’s Tuticorin. The Court dismissed all the petitions filed by Sterlite, which challenged the Tamil Nadu Government’s and the State Pollution control board’s orders, that asked for the plant to be shut for violating environmental norms.&nbsp;

Sterlite's copper smelter, which is the largest in the country was ordered shut by the Tamil Nadu Government on 28th May 2018. Protests had also been taking place in Tuticorin for nearly 100-days against the Sterlite-plant and its operation. On May 22nd 2018, the protests turned violent and Police firings on those who protested against the plant led to 13 deaths, causing severe backlash across the state. The violent protests that were carried out by anti-Sterlite protestors saw the damaging of public property and vehicles. The Tamil Nadu state Pollution control board had earlier rejected the plant’s application for renewal of Consent to Operate, in April 2018, stating that the plant had violated environmental laws.&nbsp;

Vedanta had taken legal recourse to ensure the re-opening of the plant and partially succeeded when the National green tribunal ruled in favour of the plant. However, the Supreme Court, set aside the NGT order on the grounds that they (NGT) did not have jurisdiction over the issue.&nbsp;

However, the Supreme Court allowed the company to approach the Madras High Court, before which the company’s lawyers filed nearly 10 writ petitions. The hearing of this case is said to have gone on for over 40 days and the verdict was ready by around March 2020, but it had to be deferred owing to the lockdown and the related delays that ensued.&nbsp;

The judges pointed out that at least 70 percent of the 815 page order (which would be released later in the afternoon) had been dictated over telephone or mobile phone given the current scenario that only permits remote working. It was also added that the lawyers had wound up their arguments by January 8th this year and that the final verdict and orders had taken shape by March.&nbsp;

Political reactions from across the spectrum in Tamil Nadu, hailed it as “justice for the victims of the firing”.&nbsp;

On the other hand, it is said that thousands of employees (direct and indirect) have been unemployed following the factory being ordered shut. Reports also state that the closure has led to India becoming a net importer of copper, given that the Sterlite Tuticorin smelter alone contributed to 40% of India’s copper requirement.&nbsp;

Sterlite Copper said the verdict came as an utter shock to the employees of Sterlite Copper and thousands of other small businesses that were dependent on the copper smelter’s operations. The company added that they would be pursuing all available legal remedies in the coming days.&nbsp;

“It is disheartening to note that at a time when our nation is forced to depend on hostile neighbors for copper imports, certain forces are conspiring to stifle our nation’s ability to be an independent copper manufacturer” Pankaj Kumar, CEO, Sterlite Copper said in a statement, that denied the allegations against the plant as false-truths.

Justices TS Sivagnanam and V Bhavani Subbaroyan of the Madras High Court refused to allow the re-opening of Vedanta-owned, Sterlite Copper Smelter plant, in Tamil Nadu’s Tuticorin.

Justices TS Sivagnanam and V Bhavani Subbaroyan of the Madras High Court refused to allow the re-opening of Vedanta-owned, Sterlite Copper Smelter plant, in Tamil Nadu’s Tuticorin. The Court dismissed all the petitions filed by Sterlite, which challenged the Tamil Nadu Government’s and the State Pollution control board’s orders, that asked for the plant to be shut for violating environmental norms. Sterlite's copper smelter, which is the largest in the country was ordered shut by the Tamil Nadu Government on 28th May 2018. Protests had also been taking place in Tuticorin for nearly 100-days against the Sterlite-plant and its operation. On May 22nd 2018, the protests turned violent and Police firings on those who protested against the plant led to 13 deaths, causing severe backlash across the state. The violent protests that were carried out by anti-Sterlite protestors saw the damaging of public property and vehicles. The Tamil Nadu state Pollution control board had earlier rejected the plant’s application for renewal of Consent to Operate, in April 2018, stating that the plant had violated environmental laws. Vedanta had taken legal recourse to ensure the re-opening of the plant and partially succeeded when the National green tribunal ruled in favour of the plant. However, the Supreme Court, set aside the NGT order on the grounds that they (NGT) did not have jurisdiction over the issue. However, the Supreme Court allowed the company to approach the Madras High Court, before which the company’s lawyers filed nearly 10 writ petitions. The hearing of this case is said to have gone on for over 40 days and the verdict was ready by around March 2020, but it had to be deferred owing to the lockdown and the related delays that ensued. The judges pointed out that at least 70 percent of the 815 page order (which would be released later in the afternoon) had been dictated over telephone or mobile phone given the current scenario that only permits remote working. It was also added that the lawyers had wound up their arguments by January 8th this year and that the final verdict and orders had taken shape by March. Political reactions from across the spectrum in Tamil Nadu, hailed it as “justice for the victims of the firing”. On the other hand, it is said that thousands of employees (direct and indirect) have been unemployed following the factory being ordered shut. Reports also state that the closure has led to India becoming a net importer of copper, given that the Sterlite Tuticorin smelter alone contributed to 40% of India’s copper requirement. Sterlite Copper said the verdict came as an utter shock to the employees of Sterlite Copper and thousands of other small businesses that were dependent on the copper smelter’s operations. The company added that they would be pursuing all available legal remedies in the coming days. “It is disheartening to note that at a time when our nation is forced to depend on hostile neighbors for copper imports, certain forces are conspiring to stifle our nation’s ability to be an independent copper manufacturer” Pankaj Kumar, CEO, Sterlite Copper said in a statement, that denied the allegations against the plant as false-truths.

Madras High Court refuses to allow re-opening of Sterlite Copper smelter

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has observed that the central and state governments could pass laws that ban online games that involve money such as Online Rummy, card games and others across India. The Court drew a parallel to the recent Telangana government ordinance amending the Telangana Gaming Act 1974, banning Online Rummy. This meant that users playing real cash games from the state are prohibited from doing so.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/tokyo-2020-preparing-to-deliver-games-with-covid-19-ceo-muto-315215">Tokyo 2020 preparing to deliver Games with COVID-19 - CEO Muto</a>

These observations came up when the Court was hearing a plea filed by a person named Siluvai from Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu’s Tirunelveli district.&nbsp;

The issue was pertaining to a case filed by the Kudankulam Police against Siluvai and his friends, for having played cards at a private land in a rural area. The plea stated that the group of friends had not obstructed a footpath or inconvenienced the public, and asked for the case to be quashed.&nbsp;

Hearing this plea, Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that the Tamil Nadu government had prevented many untoward incidents caused by addiction towards gambling by banning the sale of physical and online lottery tickets in 2003.&nbsp;

He added that, contemporary online games including rummy, card games and many other online games have seen people squandering money. it was also stated that particularly the youth were affected by this as their valuable time, and ability to think were being wasted on this, thus leading to unwanted consequences for society.&nbsp;

Justice Pugalendhi also observed that the Central and State governments could pass laws banning such online games involving money, given how a large number of unemployed youth were indulging in this activity. 
&nbsp;

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has observed that the central and state governments could pass laws that ban online games that involve money such as Online Rummy, card games and others across India.

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has observed that the central and state governments could pass laws that ban online games that involve money such as Online Rummy, card games and others across India. The Court drew a parallel to the recent Telangana government ordinance amending the Telangana Gaming Act 1974, banning Online Rummy. This meant that users playing real cash games from the state are prohibited from doing so. Also read | Tokyo 2020 preparing to deliver Games with COVID-19 - CEO Muto These observations came up when the Court was hearing a plea filed by a person named Siluvai from Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu’s Tirunelveli district. The issue was pertaining to a case filed by the Kudankulam Police against Siluvai and his friends, for having played cards at a private land in a rural area. The plea stated that the group of friends had not obstructed a footpath or inconvenienced the public, and asked for the case to be quashed. Hearing this plea, Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that the Tamil Nadu government had prevented many untoward incidents caused by addiction towards gambling by banning the sale of physical and online lottery tickets in 2003. He added that, contemporary online games including rummy, card games and many other online games have seen people squandering money. it was also stated that particularly the youth were affected by this as their valuable time, and ability to think were being wasted on this, thus leading to unwanted consequences for society. Justice Pugalendhi also observed that the Central and State governments could pass laws banning such online games involving money, given how a large number of unemployed youth were indulging in this activity.

High Court says government can ban games like Online Rummy

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has appreciated the CB-CID police for their quick investigation and searches, that led to the arrest of five cops of the Sathankulam Police station, in connection with the custodial death of father-son duo Jayaraj and Bennix.&nbsp;

The High Court which has taken suo-motu cognizance of the crime has been at the forefront of ensuring that the probe is expedited and justice is delivered. Be it with regards filing of murder charges or the arrest of Policemen that court has overseen important development in the case.&nbsp;

The Court had asked the CB-CID to probe the case till such time the CBI takes it over, to ensure that the crucial evidence is not destroyed. It was Tamil Nadu Chief Minister who had made a public announcement about the case being handed over two the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI).

So far, Sub Inspectors Raguganesh, Balakrishnan, Constables Murugan, Muthuraj and inspector&nbsp;Sridhar of the Sathankulam Police station have been arrested. There were photos and videos doing the rounds, of people from Sathankulam bursting crackers and celebrating the arrest of the cops.

During a hearing on Thursday, the court ordered that the witness in the case, policewoman Revathy&nbsp;be provided adequate protection and also paid leave.

A Division Bench of Justice PN Prakash and B Pugalendhi called up Revathy and spoke to her&nbsp;over the phone&nbsp;for a few minutes.

The Bench had sought details on the number of persons arrested, numbers of persons charged and the details of those who have been charged under these cases. Questions were also raised pertaining to which court these arrested persons would be produced before.&nbsp;

In its response, the government stated that the investigation has been conducted at Sathankulam Police station, government hospital and also the sub-jail. Based on the questioning of Head Constable, Revathy, a case has been registered against 5 cops from the Sathankulam station for IPC Section 302(murder). 3 woos would be appearing before the Kovilpatti magistrate and continuous investigation is underway, it was added.&nbsp;

The Bench also added that&nbsp;considering the challenges involved in taking the accused to the Kovilpatti Magistrate, over 100kms away, powers would be granted for Tuticorin Chief Judicial Magistrate to handle the case.

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has appreciated the CB-CID police for their quick investigation and searches, that led to the arrest of five cops of the Sathankulam Police station, in connection with the custodial death of father-son duo Jayaraj and Bennix.

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has appreciated the CB-CID police for their quick investigation and searches, that led to the arrest of five cops of the Sathankulam Police station, in connection with the custodial death of father-son duo Jayaraj and Bennix. The High Court which has taken suo-motu cognizance of the crime has been at the forefront of ensuring that the probe is expedited and justice is delivered. Be it with regards filing of murder charges or the arrest of Policemen that court has overseen important development in the case. The Court had asked the CB-CID to probe the case till such time the CBI takes it over, to ensure that the crucial evidence is not destroyed. It was Tamil Nadu Chief Minister who had made a public announcement about the case being handed over two the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI). So far, Sub Inspectors Raguganesh, Balakrishnan, Constables Murugan, Muthuraj and inspector Sridhar of the Sathankulam Police station have been arrested. There were photos and videos doing the rounds, of people from Sathankulam bursting crackers and celebrating the arrest of the cops. During a hearing on Thursday, the court ordered that the witness in the case, policewoman Revathy be provided adequate protection and also paid leave. A Division Bench of Justice PN Prakash and B Pugalendhi called up Revathy and spoke to her over the phone for a few minutes. The Bench had sought details on the number of persons arrested, numbers of persons charged and the details of those who have been charged under these cases. Questions were also raised pertaining to which court these arrested persons would be produced before. In its response, the government stated that the investigation has been conducted at Sathankulam Police station, government hospital and also the sub-jail. Based on the questioning of Head Constable, Revathy, a case has been registered against 5 cops from the Sathankulam station for IPC Section 302(murder). 3 woos would be appearing before the Kovilpatti magistrate and continuous investigation is underway, it was added. The Bench also added that considering the challenges involved in taking the accused to the Kovilpatti Magistrate, over 100kms away, powers would be granted for Tuticorin Chief Judicial Magistrate to handle the case.

Madras High Court lauds CB-CID probe; orders protection and paid-leave for lady cop witness

The Madras High Court has asked the Tamil Nadu government to reconsider its decision to convert late Chief Minister Jayalalithaa’s Poes garden Residence in Chennai into a memorial. Instead, the Court suggested that it be converted into the official residence-cum-office of the Chief Minister, as it has all the necessary facilities and infrastructure. &nbsp;

The court added that a part of the property could be used to construct a memorial for the former four-time Chief Minister. The Court has also said that Deepa and Deepak Jayakumar,(Jayalalithaa’s niece and nephew) are Class-II legal heirs of Jayalalithaa.

Justices N. Kirubakaran and Abdul Quddhose had delivered their verdict via video-conferencing, on an application made by Jayalalithaa’s nephew Deepak and his sister J. Deepa to administer the properties left behind by their aunt. The Bench adjourned the case by eight weeks and has sought the response of the Tamil Nadu government.

The Court order stated that, If the Government intends to make the residence of the Late Chief Minister as a memorial, there will be no end to such proposals. Every government would like to make the residence of their leaders who were Chief Ministers as memorials and unnecessarily, the public money would be utilized for setting up memorials alone.&nbsp;

“If the state government is particular that the property should be made as a memorial, instead of making the entire property as a ‘memorial”, the government may consider making use of a portion of the property to set up a memorial and the rest of the property as “Official residence-cum-Office of the Chief Minister of the State” instead of converting the property as a “memorial” as desired by the Government.

The order also noted that instead of acquiring the property that is valued over Rs.100cr and paying heavy compensation, the said amount could be used for developmental purposes such as building infrastructure, providing potable drinking water, cleaning of water bodies etc. “The real tribute to any leader should be paid by following his/her principles and working for the benefit of the people and development of the society”

This recommendation comes barely a week after Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit had promulgated an ordinance that allowed the State Government to take temporary possession of the AIADMK leader’s Poes Garden property. The residence is a sprawling bungalow measuring over 21000 sq ft and stands on ten grounds of prime real estate, at the heart of Chennai city.&nbsp;

“The building “Veda Nilayam” including the movable items such as furniture, books, jewels are in a state of disuse for more than three years. So, the government decided to transfer all the immovable and movable properties to the government for its upkeep until the acquisition process is complete” read a statement issued on May 22nd.&nbsp;

This ordinance was meant to enable the government to establish “Puratchi Thalaivi Dr J. Jayalalithaa Memorial foundation’ for making long term arrangements to convert Veda Nilayam as a memorial.&nbsp;

After her demise, there was a lot of controversy surrounding her property, as attempts were being made by her acquaintance Sasikala to acquire the property. Besides her long term-aide Sasikala who had been living in the same residence, Jayalalithaa’s nephew and niece, Deepak and Deepa have also laid claim to the property on the premise that they were her only legal heirs.

After a power struggle within her party, the AIADMK, it was in August 2017 that Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami announced that the residence of the Late CM would be converted into a memorial and opened to the public.

Following the announcement in August, an administrative sanction was issued by the Tamil Development and Information Department in October 2017 for the acquisition of the residence. Action for the same had been initiated to acquire the land and building, preliminary notification was published in July 2019 and a declaration has been published in May 2020.&nbsp;

Besides the memorial that is planned at her residence, the State Government has also been constructing a ‘Phoenix-themed’ memorial costing about 50 crores, by her resting place on the iconic Marina beach in Chennai.

The Madras High Court has asked the Tamil Nadu government to reconsider its decision to convert late Chief Minister Jayalalithaa’s Poes garden Residence in Chennai into a memorial.

The Madras High Court has asked the Tamil Nadu government to reconsider its decision to convert late Chief Minister Jayalalithaa’s Poes garden Residence in Chennai into a memorial. Instead, the Court suggested that it be converted into the official residence-cum-office of the Chief Minister, as it has all the necessary facilities and infrastructure. The court added that a part of the property could be used to construct a memorial for the former four-time Chief Minister. The Court has also said that Deepa and Deepak Jayakumar,(Jayalalithaa’s niece and nephew) are Class-II legal heirs of Jayalalithaa. Justices N. Kirubakaran and Abdul Quddhose had delivered their verdict via video-conferencing, on an application made by Jayalalithaa’s nephew Deepak and his sister J. Deepa to administer the properties left behind by their aunt. The Bench adjourned the case by eight weeks and has sought the response of the Tamil Nadu government. The Court order stated that, If the Government intends to make the residence of the Late Chief Minister as a memorial, there will be no end to such proposals. Every government would like to make the residence of their leaders who were Chief Ministers as memorials and unnecessarily, the public money would be utilized for setting up memorials alone. “If the state government is particular that the property should be made as a memorial, instead of making the entire property as a ‘memorial”, the government may consider making use of a portion of the property to set up a memorial and the rest of the property as “Official residence-cum-Office of the Chief Minister of the State” instead of converting the property as a “memorial” as desired by the Government. The order also noted that instead of acquiring the property that is valued over Rs.100cr and paying heavy compensation, the said amount could be used for developmental purposes such as building infrastructure, providing potable drinking water, cleaning of water bodies etc. “The real tribute to any leader should be paid by following his/her principles and working for the benefit of the people and development of the society” This recommendation comes barely a week after Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit had promulgated an ordinance that allowed the State Government to take temporary possession of the AIADMK leader’s Poes Garden property. The residence is a sprawling bungalow measuring over 21000 sq ft and stands on ten grounds of prime real estate, at the heart of Chennai city. “The building “Veda Nilayam” including the movable items such as furniture, books, jewels are in a state of disuse for more than three years. So, the government decided to transfer all the immovable and movable properties to the government for its upkeep until the acquisition process is complete” read a statement issued on May 22nd. This ordinance was meant to enable the government to establish “Puratchi Thalaivi Dr J. Jayalalithaa Memorial foundation’ for making long term arrangements to convert Veda Nilayam as a memorial. After her demise, there was a lot of controversy surrounding her property, as attempts were being made by her acquaintance Sasikala to acquire the property. Besides her long term-aide Sasikala who had been living in the same residence, Jayalalithaa’s nephew and niece, Deepak and Deepa have also laid claim to the property on the premise that they were her only legal heirs. After a power struggle within her party, the AIADMK, it was in August 2017 that Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami announced that the residence of the Late CM would be converted into a memorial and opened to the public. Following the announcement in August, an administrative sanction was issued by the Tamil Development and Information Department in October 2017 for the acquisition of the residence. Action for the same had been initiated to acquire the land and building, preliminary notification was published in July 2019 and a declaration has been published in May 2020. Besides the memorial that is planned at her residence, the State Government has also been constructing a ‘Phoenix-themed’ memorial costing about 50 crores, by her resting place on the iconic Marina beach in Chennai.

Make it Chief Minister residence cum office, use a portion for a memorial: Madras high court on Jayalalithaa’s residence

Hearing a PIL filed by advocate and Hindu Munnetra Kazhagam leader K. Gopinath, which sought to restrain the DGP from permitting any kind of anti-CAA protest in Tamil Nadu, Justices MM Sundaresh and Krishnan Ramaswamy directed the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police (DGP) to take into custody all those protesting on public roads, irrespective fo whether it was for or against the Act, if they did not possess the necessary permissions.

When the State Government Pleader told the court that the cops had registered more than 20 FIRs against both pro and anti-CAA protesters and that charge-sheets had also been filed in certain cases.

The judge said that mere registration of FIRs against the protestors would not solve the inconvenience caused to the general public and school children.&nbsp;

The PIL complained about the anti_CAA protestors squatting on public roads and not allowing free movement of traffic.

On the model of Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh, anti-CAA protests by religious groups have been taking place at a location in North Chennai, known as Washermanpet. Likewise, opposition parties led by the DMK have been organizing protests against the Act.

The BJP and their supporters have also taken out pro-CAA rallies in various districts of Tamil Nadu and recently held a rally near the Chepauk stadium in Chennai.&nbsp;

TN BJP spokesperson Narayanan Thirupathy had shared a photo and pointed out that an anti-CAA protest that has entered its 21st day in Mannadi, in Chennai has been causing server inconvenience to the public as roads were blocked for merely a handful of protestors. He had stated that the Police would have to take action and move them away from the spot.&nbsp;

While anti-CAA protests have been taking place in Tamil Nadu since late January, there are hardly any instances of it spiralling into violence. The only major incident where police had to resort to lathi-charge had been on February 14th, when there were instances of stone-pelting after Friday evening prayers and 4 cops were injured in the ensuing violence.

Hearing a PIL filed by advocate and Hindu Munnetra Kazhagam leader K. Gopinath, which sought to restrain the DGP from permitting any kind of anti-CAA protest in Tamil Nadu, Justices MM Sundaresh and Krishnan Ramaswamy directed the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police (DGP) to take into custody all those protesting on public roads, irrespective fo whether it was for or against the Act, if they did not possess the necessary permissions.

Hearing a PIL filed by advocate and Hindu Munnetra Kazhagam leader K. Gopinath, which sought to restrain the DGP from permitting any kind of anti-CAA protest in Tamil Nadu, Justices MM Sundaresh and Krishnan Ramaswamy directed the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police (DGP) to take into custody all those protesting on public roads, irrespective fo whether it was for or against the Act, if they did not possess the necessary permissions. When the State Government Pleader told the court that the cops had registered more than 20 FIRs against both pro and anti-CAA protesters and that charge-sheets had also been filed in certain cases. The judge said that mere registration of FIRs against the protestors would not solve the inconvenience caused to the general public and school children. The PIL complained about the anti_CAA protestors squatting on public roads and not allowing free movement of traffic. On the model of Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh, anti-CAA protests by religious groups have been taking place at a location in North Chennai, known as Washermanpet. Likewise, opposition parties led by the DMK have been organizing protests against the Act. The BJP and their supporters have also taken out pro-CAA rallies in various districts of Tamil Nadu and recently held a rally near the Chepauk stadium in Chennai. TN BJP spokesperson Narayanan Thirupathy had shared a photo and pointed out that an anti-CAA protest that has entered its 21st day in Mannadi, in Chennai has been causing server inconvenience to the public as roads were blocked for merely a handful of protestors. He had stated that the Police would have to take action and move them away from the spot. While anti-CAA protests have been taking place in Tamil Nadu since late January, there are hardly any instances of it spiralling into violence. The only major incident where police had to resort to lathi-charge had been on February 14th, when there were instances of stone-pelting after Friday evening prayers and 4 cops were injured in the ensuing violence.

Madras High Court directs TN DGP to take into custody pro/anti CAA protestors who agitate without permission

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-collegium-reiterates-names-of-justices-bose-bopanna-for-elevation-to-apex-court-217242">Supreme Court collegium</a> has approved the proposal for appointment of nine Additional Judges of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/collegium-recommends-karnataka-hc-chief-justice-delhi-court-judge-for-elevation-to-sc-189766">Madras High Court</a> as Permanent Judges.

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/does-office-of-cji-come-under-rti-act-supreme-court-bench-headed-by-chief-justice-examines-207703">judges who have been made</a> permanent are justices PT Asha, M Nirmal Kumar, Subramonium Prasad, N Anand Venkatesh, GK IIanthiraiyan, Krishnan Ramasamy, C Saravanan, B Pugalendhi and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy.

The collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde, in a meeting on Wednesday also approved the proposal for appointment of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, the Additional Judge of the Allahabad High Court, as the Permanent Judge.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/transparency-vs-opaqueness-supreme-court-collegium-in-spotlight-190728">Supreme Court collegium in spotlight</a>

It has also approved a proposal for elevation of judicial officers IIesh Jashvantrai Vora, Gita Gopi, Dr Ashokkumar C Joshi and Rajendra M Sareen as judges of the Gujarat High Court.

Besides CJI Bobde, justices N V Ramana, Arun Mishra, R F Nariman and R Banumathi are part of the new 5-judge Collegium. 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court collegium has approved the proposal for appointment of nine Additional Judges of the Madras High Court as Permanent Judges. The judges who have been made permanent are justices PT Asha, M Nirmal Kumar, Subramonium Prasad, N Anand Venkatesh, GK IIanthiraiyan, Krishnan Ramasamy, C Saravanan, B Pugalendhi and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy.

The Supreme Court collegium has approved the proposal for appointment of nine Additional Judges of the Madras High Court as Permanent Judges. The judges who have been made permanent are justices PT Asha, M Nirmal Kumar, Subramonium Prasad, N Anand Venkatesh, GK IIanthiraiyan, Krishnan Ramasamy, C Saravanan, B Pugalendhi and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy. The collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde, in a meeting on Wednesday also approved the proposal for appointment of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, the Additional Judge of the Allahabad High Court, as the Permanent Judge. Also Read: Supreme Court collegium in spotlight It has also approved a proposal for elevation of judicial officers IIesh Jashvantrai Vora, Gita Gopi, Dr Ashokkumar C Joshi and Rajendra M Sareen as judges of the Gujarat High Court. Besides CJI Bobde, justices N V Ramana, Arun Mishra, R F Nariman and R Banumathi are part of the new 5-judge Collegium.

SC Collegium approves names of nine judges of Madras HC as permanent

The Madras High Court has raised questions whether individuals can be restricted from buying more than one house until the Government completes the Awas Yojana, which intends to provide housing for all in urban areas by 2022.&nbsp;

A bench comprising of Justice Kirubakaran and Justice Abdul Quddhose sought responses by March 6th from the Central and State Government over, “when the housing for all ‘Awas Yojana’ would be completed, how many people in the country own more than house or plot, how many families have basic housing amenities in India ”

The Court was hearing an appeal moved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging a single judge order against the acquisition of about 369 acres of private land near Coimbatore for a housing scheme.&nbsp;

The Court directed the authorities to inform whether the Central and State Governments had schemed to provide housing for marginalized and economically weaker sections. Details were also sought about the families that possess more than one house.

“Why don’t the Governments curb individuals from purchasing more than one house/plot till ‘housing for all’ is accomplished.&nbsp;

Why can’t the registration charges for the second house that an individual buys be charged twice as much? Why not the government charge individuals twice as much electricity charges, water tax and house tax for the second house?”

The bench also observed as to why the authorities could not limit the NRIs from purchasing houses in India, in order to bring down the costs.

The judges highlighted the plight of lakhs of people who are living on platforms, roads, slums and river banks without basic amenities and safety. The court observed that Housing moral all could be achieved when restrictions are put on persons who hold more than one housing units.

The Madras High Court has raised questions whether individuals can be restricted from buying more than one house until the Government completes the Awas Yojana, which intends to provide housing for all in urban areas by 2022.

The Madras High Court has raised questions whether individuals can be restricted from buying more than one house until the Government completes the Awas Yojana, which intends to provide housing for all in urban areas by 2022. A bench comprising of Justice Kirubakaran and Justice Abdul Quddhose sought responses by March 6th from the Central and State Government over, “when the housing for all ‘Awas Yojana’ would be completed, how many people in the country own more than house or plot, how many families have basic housing amenities in India ” The Court was hearing an appeal moved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging a single judge order against the acquisition of about 369 acres of private land near Coimbatore for a housing scheme. The Court directed the authorities to inform whether the Central and State Governments had schemed to provide housing for marginalized and economically weaker sections. Details were also sought about the families that possess more than one house. “Why don’t the Governments curb individuals from purchasing more than one house/plot till ‘housing for all’ is accomplished. Why can’t the registration charges for the second house that an individual buys be charged twice as much? Why not the government charge individuals twice as much electricity charges, water tax and house tax for the second house?” The bench also observed as to why the authorities could not limit the NRIs from purchasing houses in India, in order to bring down the costs. The judges highlighted the plight of lakhs of people who are living on platforms, roads, slums and river banks without basic amenities and safety. The court observed that Housing moral all could be achieved when restrictions are put on persons who hold more than one housing units.

Concerned about homelessness, Madras High Court asks why not limit individuals from buying more than one house?

The Madras High Court has ordered the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police that a special branch should be appointed within two months, in every police station, to identify those who spread objectionable and defamatory content against those holding Constitutional posts, high offices and their families.&nbsp;

This comes after the High Court had earlier taken up the bail plea of Marudhachalam, a Chennai resident who was arrested for having posted defamatory, objectionable content about a sitting Judge. However, Marudhachalam was granted bail for having tendered an unconditional apology, besides having agreed to remove the objectionable, defamatory social media post.&nbsp;

Justice Dhandapani had earlier said that it had become a common, rampant practice for social media users to share defamatory content without any evidence against senior officials, those holding constitutional posts and their family members. He had ordered the cybercrime division to explore options, procedures to track and identify those posting such defamatory posts.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/how-social-media-saved-sudans-starving-lions-277278'">How social media saved Sudan's starving lions</a>

The judge had ordered the DGP to file a report on the action taken against such individuals who have been responsible for posting objectionable content against those hosting high offices.

“There is no set procedure to deal with the offenders posting objectionable and defamatory content on social media. If this is not dealt with an iron fist, it would cause serious problems in the coming times,” Justice Dhandapani said.&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/social-media-moderators-sign-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-disclosure-276838">Social media moderators asked to sign Post Traumatic Stress Disorder disclosure</a>

He added that the special branch must consist of officials who have experience in dealing with such cases and those who have considerable expertise in handling such cases of online defamation on social media platforms.&nbsp;

The DGP has to file a report by March 30 stating the status of the formation of a special branch.

The Madras High Court has ordered the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police that a special branch should be appointed within two months, in every police station, to identify those who spread objectionable and defamatory content against those holding Constitutional posts, high offices and their families.

The Madras High Court has ordered the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police that a special branch should be appointed within two months, in every police station, to identify those who spread objectionable and defamatory content against those holding Constitutional posts, high offices and their families. This comes after the High Court had earlier taken up the bail plea of Marudhachalam, a Chennai resident who was arrested for having posted defamatory, objectionable content about a sitting Judge. However, Marudhachalam was granted bail for having tendered an unconditional apology, besides having agreed to remove the objectionable, defamatory social media post. Justice Dhandapani had earlier said that it had become a common, rampant practice for social media users to share defamatory content without any evidence against senior officials, those holding constitutional posts and their family members. He had ordered the cybercrime division to explore options, procedures to track and identify those posting such defamatory posts. Also read: How social media saved Sudan's starving lions The judge had ordered the DGP to file a report on the action taken against such individuals who have been responsible for posting objectionable content against those hosting high offices. “There is no set procedure to deal with the offenders posting objectionable and defamatory content on social media. If this is not dealt with an iron fist, it would cause serious problems in the coming times,” Justice Dhandapani said. Also read: Social media moderators asked to sign Post Traumatic Stress Disorder disclosure He added that the special branch must consist of officials who have experience in dealing with such cases and those who have considerable expertise in handling such cases of online defamation on social media platforms. The DGP has to file a report by March 30 stating the status of the formation of a special branch.

Crack down on 'objectionable content' against officials on social media: Madras HC orders cops

The Madras High Court granted conditional bail to former AIADMK councillor C Jayagopal and his relative, the suspects in the 23-year old techie Subhasree’s death, which occurred due to an illegal banner (that was erected on the median of an arterial road, for a wedding in Jayagopal’s house) which fell on her, following which she was run over by a lorry.&nbsp;

Jayagopal was arrested on 27th September on two charges - one for illegally putting up the banners, and another one for causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Shortly after he was arrested, his brother-in-law Meghanathan was also picked up.

Justice C V Karthikeyan granted the relief with a condition that Jayagopal should stay in Madurai to avoid influencing witnesses. He was also directed to pay Rs.25000 each to the Cancer Institute and Government Stanley Hospital in Chennai for treatment of poor patients, he is also required to appear in a police station every day for signing.&nbsp;

Jayagopal’s brother-in-law Meghanathan has been told to sign his bail register in Chennai till the duo receive their summons from the Alandur Court.

In his bail plea, Jayagopal had alleged that the Chennai Police had ‘mechanically’ added his name to the FIR with an ‘ulterior motive’. He denied any role in having erected the banners for his son’s wedding and stated that the party cadres had put them up out of ‘love and affection’.

Following the death of Subhasri, Jayagopal had been&nbsp;on the run, it was only after a two-week hunt that the police nabbed him from Krishnagiri district.&nbsp;

In the aftermath of the techie’s tragic death , there was widespread outrage on social media and the Madras High Court too had lashed out at the state’s political parties for allowing the banner culture to persist. The court had also ordered an interim compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the girl’s family. The Court also ordered the Commissioner of police to monitor the investigation of the two cases filed in the above regard.&nbsp;

The severe criticism and harsh remarks from the court had prompted leaders of major parties to issue statements to their respective cadre on refraining from the banner culture.

The Madras High Court granted conditional bail to former AIADMK councillor C Jayagopal and his relative, the suspects in the 23-year old techie Subhasree’s death, which occurred due to an illegal banner (that was erected on the median of an arterial road, for a wedding in Jayagopal’s house) which fell on her, following which she was run over by a lorry.

The Madras High Court granted conditional bail to former AIADMK councillor C Jayagopal and his relative, the suspects in the 23-year old techie Subhasree’s death, which occurred due to an illegal banner (that was erected on the median of an arterial road, for a wedding in Jayagopal’s house) which fell on her, following which she was run over by a lorry. Jayagopal was arrested on 27th September on two charges - one for illegally putting up the banners, and another one for causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Shortly after he was arrested, his brother-in-law Meghanathan was also picked up. Justice C V Karthikeyan granted the relief with a condition that Jayagopal should stay in Madurai to avoid influencing witnesses. He was also directed to pay Rs.25000 each to the Cancer Institute and Government Stanley Hospital in Chennai for treatment of poor patients, he is also required to appear in a police station every day for signing. Jayagopal’s brother-in-law Meghanathan has been told to sign his bail register in Chennai till the duo receive their summons from the Alandur Court. In his bail plea, Jayagopal had alleged that the Chennai Police had ‘mechanically’ added his name to the FIR with an ‘ulterior motive’. He denied any role in having erected the banners for his son’s wedding and stated that the party cadres had put them up out of ‘love and affection’. Following the death of Subhasri, Jayagopal had been on the run, it was only after a two-week hunt that the police nabbed him from Krishnagiri district. In the aftermath of the techie’s tragic death , there was widespread outrage on social media and the Madras High Court too had lashed out at the state’s political parties for allowing the banner culture to persist. The court had also ordered an interim compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the girl’s family. The Court also ordered the Commissioner of police to monitor the investigation of the two cases filed in the above regard. The severe criticism and harsh remarks from the court had prompted leaders of major parties to issue statements to their respective cadre on refraining from the banner culture.

Madras High Court grants conditional bail for suspects in techie Subhasri’s death 

The Madras High Court on Thursday permitted the Tamil Nadu State Government to erect banners from the Chennai airport till Mahabalipuram town to welcome Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping who are to have an <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/chinese-president-xi-jinping-to-visit-chennai-for-second-informal-summit-with-pm-modi-253221">informal summit in the Mahabalipuram town</a> over the next weekend.&nbsp;

The Division Bench of Justice Sathyanarayanan and Justice Seshasayee stated that permission was not required as the ban on flex banners applied only to political parties, while also making it clear that the banners must be erected in a manner that does not inconvenience to the public. The Court also said that no political parties would be allowed to erect banners.

The State Government in its affidavit submitted to the Madras High Court, on Tuesday, said that all over the state political parties were not permitted to erect banners, but since PM Modi and Xi are visiting Mahabalipuram during October 11-12 for an informal summit, as part of bilateral relations and a goodwill gesture it is customary to erect banners to welcome the dignitaries.&nbsp;

The state government mentioned that the Ministry of External Affairs has proposed to put up welcome banners in Chennai in 14 locations, nine locations in East Coast Road, two locations in Mahabalipuram. Where the state government would erect banners in five locations in Chennai, four locations in Mahabalipuram and seven locations in Old Mahabalipuram Road and East Coast Road.&nbsp;

The above welcome banners will be put up from October 9 to 13. The welcome banners will be in places as per the specifications mentioned in the existing rules and it would be ensured that these banners would not cause any hindrance to the public. The strictest standards of safety would be maintained.

The banner culture has been a talking point in Tamil Nadu over the last month, after the tragic death of 23-year old Techie Subhasree, who was run over by a lorry after an illegal banner fell on her, while she was riding her bike. In 2017, the court had banned hoardings and flex boards featuring living persons, however, the banner culture has continued to block pedestrian walkways and arterial roads unabated.&nbsp;

In December 2018, the Madras High Court restrained all the political parties in Tamil Nadu from erecting digital banners and hoardings on arterial roads posing a risk to road users and pedestrians, until further orders.

On Wednesday, actor-turned-politician Kamal Haasan had appealed to PM Modi on Twitter, requesting him to put an end to the banner culture, as the Madras High Court is expected to respond on Thursday to permissions sought by the state government for erecting banners ahead of the Modi-Xi Jinping informal summit that is to take place over the following weekend in Mahabalipuram.

Haasan Tweeted, ''Honorable @PMOIndia While Thamizh Nadu and Thamizhians are struggling to cope up with the loss of Shubasri’s death, the Thamizh Nadu Government has approached the courts to obtain permission to erect your banners. If you act as a pioneer in taking the first step to put an end to this haphazard banner culture, it will reflect your concern towards the sentiments of Thamizhians, and that in itself will garner you the greatest publicity possible. Jai Hind!”

The Madras High Court on Thursday permitted the Tamil Nadu State Government to erect banners from the Chennai airport till Mahabalipuram town to welcome Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping who are to have an informal summit in the Mahabalipuram town over the next weekend.

The Madras High Court on Thursday permitted the Tamil Nadu State Government to erect banners from the Chennai airport till Mahabalipuram town to welcome Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping who are to have an informal summit in the Mahabalipuram town over the next weekend. The Division Bench of Justice Sathyanarayanan and Justice Seshasayee stated that permission was not required as the ban on flex banners applied only to political parties, while also making it clear that the banners must be erected in a manner that does not inconvenience to the public. The Court also said that no political parties would be allowed to erect banners. The State Government in its affidavit submitted to the Madras High Court, on Tuesday, said that all over the state political parties were not permitted to erect banners, but since PM Modi and Xi are visiting Mahabalipuram during October 11-12 for an informal summit, as part of bilateral relations and a goodwill gesture it is customary to erect banners to welcome the dignitaries. The state government mentioned that the Ministry of External Affairs has proposed to put up welcome banners in Chennai in 14 locations, nine locations in East Coast Road, two locations in Mahabalipuram. Where the state government would erect banners in five locations in Chennai, four locations in Mahabalipuram and seven locations in Old Mahabalipuram Road and East Coast Road. The above welcome banners will be put up from October 9 to 13. The welcome banners will be in places as per the specifications mentioned in the existing rules and it would be ensured that these banners would not cause any hindrance to the public. The strictest standards of safety would be maintained. The banner culture has been a talking point in Tamil Nadu over the last month, after the tragic death of 23-year old Techie Subhasree, who was run over by a lorry after an illegal banner fell on her, while she was riding her bike. In 2017, the court had banned hoardings and flex boards featuring living persons, however, the banner culture has continued to block pedestrian walkways and arterial roads unabated. In December 2018, the Madras High Court restrained all the political parties in Tamil Nadu from erecting digital banners and hoardings on arterial roads posing a risk to road users and pedestrians, until further orders. On Wednesday, actor-turned-politician Kamal Haasan had appealed to PM Modi on Twitter, requesting him to put an end to the banner culture, as the Madras High Court is expected to respond on Thursday to permissions sought by the state government for erecting banners ahead of the Modi-Xi Jinping informal summit that is to take place over the following weekend in Mahabalipuram. Haasan Tweeted, ''Honorable @PMOIndia While Thamizh Nadu and Thamizhians are struggling to cope up with the loss of Shubasri’s death, the Thamizh Nadu Government has approached the courts to obtain permission to erect your banners. If you act as a pioneer in taking the first step to put an end to this haphazard banner culture, it will reflect your concern towards the sentiments of Thamizhians, and that in itself will garner you the greatest publicity possible. Jai Hind!”

Madras High Court permits welcome banners for Modi-Xi Summit

Senior Advocates and Members of the Madras High Court Advocates Association, Bar Council and other affiliated bodies have called for a strike on Tuesday to protest against the Transfer of Chief Justice Vijaya Tahilramani to the Meghalaya High Court, which a collegium headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi had recommended.&nbsp;

On September 6, Justice Tahilramani tendered her resignation protesting the transfer to the Meghalaya High Court, after the Supreme Court Collegium passed a resolution rejecting her representation seeking to reconsider the transfer.&nbsp;

The Meghalaya High Court has a strength of three judges as opposed to the sanctioned strength of 75 in the Madras High Court.&nbsp;

Speaking to WION, senior advocate NGR Prasad said, “there is no precedence of this kind of a transfer and a manner in which it was carried out. She is the senior-most judge in the institution and senior judges are promoted to the Supreme Court. It smacks of toxic masculinity”.

On Monday, a notice signed by the Assistant Registrar of the Madras High Court read, “The Hon’ble Chief Justice is not sitting in Court today, on 09/09/2019 Monday.”

The notice added that "urgent Motions and Admissions in Public Interest Litigations relating to Rights of Women and Children filed on or after 1st January 2019 (all stages) Public Interest Litigations and writ appeals or writ petitions relating to unauthorised constructions, land encroachments (including in forest land) (all stages) writ petitions or civil revision petitions relating to the decisions of Debts Recovery Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal moved if any are permitted to be moved before the Honourable Division bench consisting of Dr Justice Vineet Kothari and Justice C Saravanan in court 2 on Monday."

Velmurugan, a Bar Council Member told WION, “ours is a fight for transparency as the Collegium is not transparent. This is a turning point, as the Chief Justice has stood up for her self respect. Senior-most judge with no blot on her record is being unceremoniously transferred. This is a grave injustice and we are bounden to raise our voice, there are precedents when the Collegium also has gone wrong”.

Responding to the calls for protest by Lawyers associations, Former Judge Justice K Chandru said to WION, “the policy of the Central government accepted by the Apex Court makes the chief Justice always come from outside the State. There are 25 High Courts across India, only a few states have a common High Court. Strength of a bench depends on the number of cases, for instance, one cannot compare the bench in a city like Chennai or Mumbai or Delhi with a Northeastern state. Many judges also consider a posting in the Madras High Court as a punishment, due to the volume of cases and frequent protests, also in the last 30 years no judge from Madras High Court has been transferred to Mumbai or Kolkata, we always get transferred to Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Orissa.”

Senior advocate R Vaigai told WION, “Justice Tahilramani is the senior-most Judge, how is it right to shift her to a small court? There are no complaints here against her. Justice AK Mittal is to be transferred to Madras High Court. He is coming from a small court to a large one like Madras, where the cases are higher, the additional jurisdictions are more and the state population is a lot more. The people of Tamil Nadu ought to be given a good deal by the means of a Chief Justice.”

“Transfers are always made for administrative reasons, so many judges have been transferred, it is standard government jargon. Justice Tahilramani did not want to accept it and she resigned. Once a judge sends a resignation letter to the President, it applies immediately and there is no question of it being rejected, except in the case of a future date of resignation. Until the President notifies an acting Chief Justice, it is standing procedure for the slated case to go to the second court. Lawyers last went on a protest, nearly a year ago, now this issue has come handy for them to agitate”, Justice Chandru added.&nbsp;

Senior Advocates and Members of the Madras High Court Advocates Association, Bar Council and other affiliated bodies have called for a strike on Tuesday to protest against the Transfer of Chief Justice Vijaya Tahilramani to the Meghalaya High Court, which a collegium headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi had recommended.

Senior Advocates and Members of the Madras High Court Advocates Association, Bar Council and other affiliated bodies have called for a strike on Tuesday to protest against the Transfer of Chief Justice Vijaya Tahilramani to the Meghalaya High Court, which a collegium headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi had recommended. On September 6, Justice Tahilramani tendered her resignation protesting the transfer to the Meghalaya High Court, after the Supreme Court Collegium passed a resolution rejecting her representation seeking to reconsider the transfer. The Meghalaya High Court has a strength of three judges as opposed to the sanctioned strength of 75 in the Madras High Court. Speaking to WION, senior advocate NGR Prasad said, “there is no precedence of this kind of a transfer and a manner in which it was carried out. She is the senior-most judge in the institution and senior judges are promoted to the Supreme Court. It smacks of toxic masculinity”. On Monday, a notice signed by the Assistant Registrar of the Madras High Court read, “The Hon’ble Chief Justice is not sitting in Court today, on 09/09/2019 Monday.” The notice added that "urgent Motions and Admissions in Public Interest Litigations relating to Rights of Women and Children filed on or after 1st January 2019 (all stages) Public Interest Litigations and writ appeals or writ petitions relating to unauthorised constructions, land encroachments (including in forest land) (all stages) writ petitions or civil revision petitions relating to the decisions of Debts Recovery Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal moved if any are permitted to be moved before the Honourable Division bench consisting of Dr Justice Vineet Kothari and Justice C Saravanan in court 2 on Monday." Velmurugan, a Bar Council Member told WION, “ours is a fight for transparency as the Collegium is not transparent. This is a turning point, as the Chief Justice has stood up for her self respect. Senior-most judge with no blot on her record is being unceremoniously transferred. This is a grave injustice and we are bounden to raise our voice, there are precedents when the Collegium also has gone wrong”. Responding to the calls for protest by Lawyers associations, Former Judge Justice K Chandru said to WION, “the policy of the Central government accepted by the Apex Court makes the chief Justice always come from outside the State. There are 25 High Courts across India, only a few states have a common High Court. Strength of a bench depends on the number of cases, for instance, one cannot compare the bench in a city like Chennai or Mumbai or Delhi with a Northeastern state. Many judges also consider a posting in the Madras High Court as a punishment, due to the volume of cases and frequent protests, also in the last 30 years no judge from Madras High Court has been transferred to Mumbai or Kolkata, we always get transferred to Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Orissa.” Senior advocate R Vaigai told WION, “Justice Tahilramani is the senior-most Judge, how is it right to shift her to a small court? There are no complaints here against her. Justice AK Mittal is to be transferred to Madras High Court. He is coming from a small court to a large one like Madras, where the cases are higher, the additional jurisdictions are more and the state population is a lot more. The people of Tamil Nadu ought to be given a good deal by the means of a Chief Justice.” “Transfers are always made for administrative reasons, so many judges have been transferred, it is standard government jargon. Justice Tahilramani did not want to accept it and she resigned. Once a judge sends a resignation letter to the President, it applies immediately and there is no question of it being rejected, except in the case of a future date of resignation. Until the President notifies an acting Chief Justice, it is standing procedure for the slated case to go to the second court. Lawyers last went on a protest, nearly a year ago, now this issue has come handy for them to agitate”, Justice Chandru added.

Madras High Court advocates to boycott work to protest Chief Justice Vijaya Tahilramani’s transfer

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down the plea filed by the Chinese video app TikTok seeking transfer of cases relating to ban on it from the Madras High Court to the top court.

A division bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said, "We are not inclined to entertain this transfer petition. The Madras High Court can very well address all the issues."

Earlier, the apex court had directed the Madras High Court to decide on April 24 the plea of TikTok seeking interim relief of lifting the ban imposed by it.

On April 24, the Madras HC had lifted its ban on the social media App with the condition that it will not host obscene content.&nbsp;

The HC had imposed ban on the App on April 3 after the Centre claimed that it carried content which "encouraged pornography and degraded culture."

"Minors are also being exposed to strangers through this app," the HC had said. The court had said it was evident from media reports that pornography and inappropriate content were made available through such mobile applications.

It's ruling came after advocate and social activist Muthu Kumar&nbsp;filed public interest litigation calling for a ban. The Centre had sent a letter to Apple and Google to abide by the state court's order.

The TokTok app is owned by Chinese-based Bytedance that claims to have over 50 million active users in India. TikTok allows users to create and share short videos with special effects. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down the plea filed by the Chinese video app TikTok seeking transfer of cases relating to ban on it from the Madras High Court to the top court.

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down the plea filed by the Chinese video app TikTok seeking transfer of cases relating to ban on it from the Madras High Court to the top court. A division bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said, "We are not inclined to entertain this transfer petition. The Madras High Court can very well address all the issues." Earlier, the apex court had directed the Madras High Court to decide on April 24 the plea of TikTok seeking interim relief of lifting the ban imposed by it. On April 24, the Madras HC had lifted its ban on the social media App with the condition that it will not host obscene content. The HC had imposed ban on the App on April 3 after the Centre claimed that it carried content which "encouraged pornography and degraded culture." "Minors are also being exposed to strangers through this app," the HC had said. The court had said it was evident from media reports that pornography and inappropriate content were made available through such mobile applications. It's ruling came after advocate and social activist Muthu Kumar filed public interest litigation calling for a ban. The Centre had sent a letter to Apple and Google to abide by the state court's order. The TokTok app is owned by Chinese-based Bytedance that claims to have over 50 million active users in India. TikTok allows users to create and share short videos with special effects. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court rejects TikTok's plea seeking transfer of cases relating to ban from Madras high court

The Madras High Court Friday said a rape victim need not approach the medical board or the judiciary to terminate her pregnancy provided its length has not exceeded 20 weeks.

Disposing of a criminal original petition from a victim, Justice N Anand Venkatesh said in all cases of unneeded pregnancy suffered by a victim, she need not be referred to the medical board if the length of pregnancy does not exceed 20 weeks.

"The termination of pregnancy can be done as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The victim girl should not be unnecessarily made to knock the doors of this court," he said in his order.

The petitioner, a girl, who was allegedly raped by a man Naveeth Ahamed under duress as a result of which she became pregnant, sought a direction to transfer the probe from local police to the Crime Branch CID.

The assailant had recorded videos and intimidated her to yield to his carnal desires, she alleged and sought a direction to the state-run Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, to medically terminate her pregnancy.

After filing a police complaint against the alleged rapist, she petitioned police to arrange for termination of her pregnancy.

Since the police did not take steps, she herself got admitted to the institute.&nbsp;

Though doctors initially agreed to terminate her pregnancy, she was subsequently discharged in view of the police case and the need for forensic examination.

Left with no other alternative, when the petitioner moved the High Court, it directed her to the government Kasturba Gandhi Hospital for Women and Children, where it was revealed that she was 8 to 10 weeks pregnant.

The government hospital and the institute wrote to the Dean, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital here, that only the medical board there could terminate the pregnancy.

The court then directed police to take the petitioner to RGGGH and tasked the hospital to proceed with the termination of pregnancy and take samples for DNA test and hand it over to the Forensic lab.

Accordingly, the medical board evaluated the petitioner, the pregnancy was terminated and it was reported to the court on June 18.

Counsel for the petitioner, Sudha Ramalingam, submitted that in all cases involving medical termination of pregnancy, the victim should not be made to knock on the doors of the court, where the pregnancy is below 20 weeks.

The judge said even in cases where the length of pregnancy exceeded 20&nbsp; 
weeks, it can be terminated (in accordance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act) if the life of the woman was under threat.

In all other cases, where the length of pregnancy exceeds 20 weeks, the victim may approach the High Court for getting an abortion and the medical board will examine the matter.

In all cases of termination of pregnancy involving a criminal case, samples will have to be taken for DNA test, the court said.

The Madras High Court Friday said a rape victim need not approach the medical board or the judiciary to terminate her pregnancy provided its length has not exceeded 20 weeks.

The Madras High Court Friday said a rape victim need not approach the medical board or the judiciary to terminate her pregnancy provided its length has not exceeded 20 weeks. Disposing of a criminal original petition from a victim, Justice N Anand Venkatesh said in all cases of unneeded pregnancy suffered by a victim, she need not be referred to the medical board if the length of pregnancy does not exceed 20 weeks. "The termination of pregnancy can be done as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The victim girl should not be unnecessarily made to knock the doors of this court," he said in his order. The petitioner, a girl, who was allegedly raped by a man Naveeth Ahamed under duress as a result of which she became pregnant, sought a direction to transfer the probe from local police to the Crime Branch CID. The assailant had recorded videos and intimidated her to yield to his carnal desires, she alleged and sought a direction to the state-run Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, to medically terminate her pregnancy. After filing a police complaint against the alleged rapist, she petitioned police to arrange for termination of her pregnancy. Since the police did not take steps, she herself got admitted to the institute. Though doctors initially agreed to terminate her pregnancy, she was subsequently discharged in view of the police case and the need for forensic examination. Left with no other alternative, when the petitioner moved the High Court, it directed her to the government Kasturba Gandhi Hospital for Women and Children, where it was revealed that she was 8 to 10 weeks pregnant. The government hospital and the institute wrote to the Dean, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital here, that only the medical board there could terminate the pregnancy. The court then directed police to take the petitioner to RGGGH and tasked the hospital to proceed with the termination of pregnancy and take samples for DNA test and hand it over to the Forensic lab. Accordingly, the medical board evaluated the petitioner, the pregnancy was terminated and it was reported to the court on June 18. Counsel for the petitioner, Sudha Ramalingam, submitted that in all cases involving medical termination of pregnancy, the victim should not be made to knock on the doors of the court, where the pregnancy is below 20 weeks. The judge said even in cases where the length of pregnancy exceeded 20 weeks, it can be terminated (in accordance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act) if the life of the woman was under threat. In all other cases, where the length of pregnancy exceeds 20 weeks, the victim may approach the High Court for getting an abortion and the medical board will examine the matter. In all cases of termination of pregnancy involving a criminal case, samples will have to be taken for DNA test, the court said.

Rape victims can end pregnancy without medical board nod: Madras High Court

Tamil Nadu's opposition party, the DMK, lashed out at the AIADMK government which approached the Supreme Court on Friday against the Madras High Court order quashing land acquisition proceedings for the Rs 10,000 crore Chennai-Salem eight-lane expressway.

"The AIADMK-BJP coalition which faced a rout in Tamil Nadu was betraying the people after being angered and humiliated by their debacle in the state," Stalin said.

He also accused Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami of going back on his poll promise of not implementing projects that would affect the farmers in Tamil Nadu.

Stalin also urged the government to withdraw their petition to the Supreme Court and look for an alternative route to implement the developmental project in a manner that would not affect the farmers.

In its April 8 judgement, the high court said that the project requires a mega re-alignment as the proposed route would have an adverse effect on the environment, including water bodies. The judgement was passed by the court after considering a batch of petitions filed by 35 land owners from the region and PMK leader Anbumani Ramadoss.

The proposed eight-lane 277-km-long expressway, approved in February 2018, was aimed at cutting down travel time between Chennai and Salem by a little over two hours and reducing the distance by around 68 kilometres. As per the project report, it was to pass via five districts of Tamil Nanu namely Kanchipuram, Tiruvannamalai, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri and Salem.

However, the project faced protests from various groups on the grounds that it could end up utilising over 7,500 acres of land. Some of this includes agricultural land, villages, orchards, and reserve forests. Land acquisition and compensation for the same were major roadblocks. They were of the opinion that this project would not be necessary as there are three highways currently connecting the state's capital city with Salem.

While the AIADMK government was keen on having this project implemented, the DMK stood with the protesters and also said that they were against its implementation.

A Supreme Court bench of Justices M R Shah and A S Bopanna agreed to take up the matter on plea for an urgent hearing made by the counsel appearing for the state government. The petition will be heard on June 3.

Tamil Nadu's opposition party, the DMK, lashed out at the AIADMK government which approached the Supreme Court on Friday against the Madras High Court order quashing land acquisition proceedings for the Rs 10,000 crore Chennai-Salem eight-lane expressway.

Tamil Nadu's opposition party, the DMK, lashed out at the AIADMK government which approached the Supreme Court on Friday against the Madras High Court order quashing land acquisition proceedings for the Rs 10,000 crore Chennai-Salem eight-lane expressway. "The AIADMK-BJP coalition which faced a rout in Tamil Nadu was betraying the people after being angered and humiliated by their debacle in the state," Stalin said. He also accused Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami of going back on his poll promise of not implementing projects that would affect the farmers in Tamil Nadu. Stalin also urged the government to withdraw their petition to the Supreme Court and look for an alternative route to implement the developmental project in a manner that would not affect the farmers. In its April 8 judgement, the high court said that the project requires a mega re-alignment as the proposed route would have an adverse effect on the environment, including water bodies. The judgement was passed by the court after considering a batch of petitions filed by 35 land owners from the region and PMK leader Anbumani Ramadoss. The proposed eight-lane 277-km-long expressway, approved in February 2018, was aimed at cutting down travel time between Chennai and Salem by a little over two hours and reducing the distance by around 68 kilometres. As per the project report, it was to pass via five districts of Tamil Nanu namely Kanchipuram, Tiruvannamalai, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri and Salem. However, the project faced protests from various groups on the grounds that it could end up utilising over 7,500 acres of land. Some of this includes agricultural land, villages, orchards, and reserve forests. Land acquisition and compensation for the same were major roadblocks. They were of the opinion that this project would not be necessary as there are three highways currently connecting the state's capital city with Salem. While the AIADMK government was keen on having this project implemented, the DMK stood with the protesters and also said that they were against its implementation. A Supreme Court bench of Justices M R Shah and A S Bopanna agreed to take up the matter on plea for an urgent hearing made by the counsel appearing for the state government. The petition will be heard on June 3.

Betrayal, says DMK as Tamil Nadu challenges high court order against Chennai-Salem expressway in Supreme Court

In what comes a major relief to actor-turned-politician Kamal Haasan, the Madurai bench of the Madras High court has granted him Anticipatory bail on Monday, after the Police booked him for his controversial remarks on Nathuram Godse. Kamal made the remarks while campaigning for his party Makkal Needhi Maiam’s Aravakurichi candidate.&nbsp;

It was at a public meeting on May 12&nbsp;that Haasan said that Independent India’s first terrorist was a Hindu, referring to Nathuram Godse who had assassinated Mahatma Gandhi.&nbsp;

This statement had generated political reactions from the BJP and the ruling AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, which is part of the BJP-led NDA alliance. Hassan was accused of minority appeasement and the BJP had also complained to the Election Commission that his ‘remarks were made deliberately in the presence of a Muslim majority crowd for electoral gains’.

The FIR against his comments were filed in Aravakurichi based on the complaint filed by members of Hindu fringe groups. A case was registered under sections 153A and 295A.&nbsp;

The High Court’s Madurai bench had reserved its order last week.&nbsp;

After completing his last leg of campaigning, Kamal Haasan had clarified that “If a historical truth is spoken and it wounds people, we should heal that wound. That’s why we are here, being together and co-existing is the way ahead.”

Elaborating that his comments were on co-existence over tolerance, Haasan said other religions should not be tolerated but should be wholly accepted.

There were also attempts of violence against the actor for his comments, as miscreants had hurled slippers, eggs and stones at rallies of the actor. However, they fell in the midst of the crowd and the actor was escorted to safety.&nbsp;

Haasan’s party Makkal Needhi Maiam is making its debut in the Parliamentary polls and the by-polls to Tamil Nadu’s Assembly seats.

In what comes a major relief to actor-turned-politician Kamal Haasan, the Madurai bench of the Madras High court has granted him Anticipatory bail on Monday, after the Police booked him for his controversial remarks on Nathuram Godse.

In what comes a major relief to actor-turned-politician Kamal Haasan, the Madurai bench of the Madras High court has granted him Anticipatory bail on Monday, after the Police booked him for his controversial remarks on Nathuram Godse. Kamal made the remarks while campaigning for his party Makkal Needhi Maiam’s Aravakurichi candidate. It was at a public meeting on May 12 that Haasan said that Independent India’s first terrorist was a Hindu, referring to Nathuram Godse who had assassinated Mahatma Gandhi. This statement had generated political reactions from the BJP and the ruling AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, which is part of the BJP-led NDA alliance. Hassan was accused of minority appeasement and the BJP had also complained to the Election Commission that his ‘remarks were made deliberately in the presence of a Muslim majority crowd for electoral gains’. The FIR against his comments were filed in Aravakurichi based on the complaint filed by members of Hindu fringe groups. A case was registered under sections 153A and 295A. The High Court’s Madurai bench had reserved its order last week. After completing his last leg of campaigning, Kamal Haasan had clarified that “If a historical truth is spoken and it wounds people, we should heal that wound. That’s why we are here, being together and co-existing is the way ahead.” Elaborating that his comments were on co-existence over tolerance, Haasan said other religions should not be tolerated but should be wholly accepted. There were also attempts of violence against the actor for his comments, as miscreants had hurled slippers, eggs and stones at rallies of the actor. However, they fell in the midst of the crowd and the actor was escorted to safety. Haasan’s party Makkal Needhi Maiam is making its debut in the Parliamentary polls and the by-polls to Tamil Nadu’s Assembly seats.

Nathuram Godse remark: Madras High Court grants anticipatory bail to Kamal Haasan

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court dismissed public interest litigation filed by KK Ramesh who had sought that the May 19 by-election to Thiruparankundram assembly constituency be cancelled or postponed due to alleged money distribution to voters.

The petitioner who is a resident of Madurai is also contesting as an independent candidate from Thiruparankundram and had stated that the three main parties the AIADMK, DMK and AMMK were distributing Rs 1000 each to voters.

KK Ramesh said that though the independent candidates had complained about money distribution, flying squad officials had not acted upon it.&nbsp;

A bench comprising of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice M Dhandapani dismissed the petition.&nbsp;

Just a day ahead of the polling day for the parliamentary elections and the 18 assembly seats by-elections, the Madras High Court had rescinded the polls in Vellore Lok Sabha constituency. It was done due to rampant cash seizures in the constituency.&nbsp;

The 38 parliamentary seats in Tamil Nadu had gone to the polls along with 18 vacant assembly constituencies. On May 19 four vacant assembly seats would go to the polls along with re-polling in 13 booths across the state, owing to errors in handling the EVMs and VVPAT and clearing their memory after the mock polls.&nbsp;

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court dismissed public interest litigation filed by KK Ramesh who had sought that the May 19 by-election to Thiruparankundram assembly constituency be cancelled or postponed due to alleged money distribution to voters.

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court dismissed public interest litigation filed by KK Ramesh who had sought that the May 19 by-election to Thiruparankundram assembly constituency be cancelled or postponed due to alleged money distribution to voters. The petitioner who is a resident of Madurai is also contesting as an independent candidate from Thiruparankundram and had stated that the three main parties the AIADMK, DMK and AMMK were distributing Rs 1000 each to voters. KK Ramesh said that though the independent candidates had complained about money distribution, flying squad officials had not acted upon it. A bench comprising of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice M Dhandapani dismissed the petition. Just a day ahead of the polling day for the parliamentary elections and the 18 assembly seats by-elections, the Madras High Court had rescinded the polls in Vellore Lok Sabha constituency. It was done due to rampant cash seizures in the constituency. The 38 parliamentary seats in Tamil Nadu had gone to the polls along with 18 vacant assembly constituencies. On May 19 four vacant assembly seats would go to the polls along with re-polling in 13 booths across the state, owing to errors in handling the EVMs and VVPAT and clearing their memory after the mock polls.

Madras High Court rejects PIL seeking cancellation of Thiruparankundram assembly bypolls

The Election Commission on Tuesday submitted in the Madras High Court that the security breach in the storage room, where poll related documents of Madurai Lok Sabha seat were kept, has eroded public confidence to a significant extent about the fairness of the election process.

"The incident has created a dent and serious apprehension in the minds of public, media, candidates and political parties," Satyabrata Sahoo, Tamil Nadu Chief Electoral Officer said through a counter filed in the plea by CPI-M candidate Su Venkatesan, seeking a probe by a Special Investigation Team.

Sahoo said the lapse shows the need for substantial improvement in the coordination between the police and the district administration.

"For counting and results, one additional counting observer from the state civil service in the rank of the additional magistrate will be appointed to report to the general observer for the constituency," Sahoo said.

Earlier, the division bench of Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad refused to vacate the interim order directing the Election Commission (EC) to initiate disciplinary action against the transferred Madurai returning officer S Natarajan and others who were responsible for the security breach.

Technically, it was not the court's direction, while the court was about to pass orders, the EC produced a communication informing their decision to transfer the officials and take disciplinary action against them. The same was recorded in the order, the bench said, rejecting Natarajan's request.

Senior counsel ARL Sundaresan, appearing for Natarajan, submitted it was only the assistant returning officer who instructed the tahsildar to visit the room which was under his custody without obtaining prior permission from the returning officer.

Claiming that he was facing action for no fault on his part, Natarajan submitted that even the additional chief electoral officer who conducted an inquiry into the incident did not get any explanation from him.

"He had not been given fair opportunities to know the statements of others and to defend the allegations against him," Sundaresan said.

Similarly, M Rajasekaran, Personal Assistant (General) to the Madurai Collector, who was alleged to have instructed the ARO to send the tahsildar to visit the room, moved an impleading petition claiming that he has no role in the election works as it was handled by a separate designated PA.

"My name has been included in the issue and action has been ordered by mistake," he said.

As the petitioners' counsel did not object for his impleading, the court added him as a party respondent and posted the plea to June 6 for further hearing.

On Saturday, the court directed the Election Commission to initiate disciplinary action or prosecution against M Rajasekaran and two officials for allowing polling staff to enter a storage room where records of the April 18 polls are kept.

Besides the PA, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime), who was in charge of election duty that day, and police personnel present there reportedly allowed a woman tahsildar and three other polling staff to enter the room.

The Tahsildar is now under suspension.

The court had passed the interim order on a petition filed by CPI(M)'s Venkatesan.

According to Venkatesan, the tahsildar allegedly trespassed into the documents storage room on April 20 without any authority and remained there for three hours.

Venkatesan has submitted that three staff members of Madurai Municipal Corporation had also accompanied her.

Alleging that the unlawful incident would not have occurred without the knowledge of District Collector Natarajan, who is the Returning Officer, Venkatesan had sought an interim direction for appointment of a special observer of the rank of an IAS officer for counting the postal ballots.

Besides, the petitioner also sought three-tier security for the counting centre, transfer of the returning officer and appointment of a Special Investigation Team.&nbsp;

The Election Commission on Tuesday submitted in the Madras High Court that the security breach in the storage room, where poll related documents of Madurai Lok Sabha seat were kept, has eroded public confidence to a significant extent about the fairness of the election process.

The Election Commission on Tuesday submitted in the Madras High Court that the security breach in the storage room, where poll related documents of Madurai Lok Sabha seat were kept, has eroded public confidence to a significant extent about the fairness of the election process. "The incident has created a dent and serious apprehension in the minds of public, media, candidates and political parties," Satyabrata Sahoo, Tamil Nadu Chief Electoral Officer said through a counter filed in the plea by CPI-M candidate Su Venkatesan, seeking a probe by a Special Investigation Team. Sahoo said the lapse shows the need for substantial improvement in the coordination between the police and the district administration. "For counting and results, one additional counting observer from the state civil service in the rank of the additional magistrate will be appointed to report to the general observer for the constituency," Sahoo said. Earlier, the division bench of Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad refused to vacate the interim order directing the Election Commission (EC) to initiate disciplinary action against the transferred Madurai returning officer S Natarajan and others who were responsible for the security breach. Technically, it was not the court's direction, while the court was about to pass orders, the EC produced a communication informing their decision to transfer the officials and take disciplinary action against them. The same was recorded in the order, the bench said, rejecting Natarajan's request. Senior counsel ARL Sundaresan, appearing for Natarajan, submitted it was only the assistant returning officer who instructed the tahsildar to visit the room which was under his custody without obtaining prior permission from the returning officer. Claiming that he was facing action for no fault on his part, Natarajan submitted that even the additional chief electoral officer who conducted an inquiry into the incident did not get any explanation from him. "He had not been given fair opportunities to know the statements of others and to defend the allegations against him," Sundaresan said. Similarly, M Rajasekaran, Personal Assistant (General) to the Madurai Collector, who was alleged to have instructed the ARO to send the tahsildar to visit the room, moved an impleading petition claiming that he has no role in the election works as it was handled by a separate designated PA. "My name has been included in the issue and action has been ordered by mistake," he said. As the petitioners' counsel did not object for his impleading, the court added him as a party respondent and posted the plea to June 6 for further hearing. On Saturday, the court directed the Election Commission to initiate disciplinary action or prosecution against M Rajasekaran and two officials for allowing polling staff to enter a storage room where records of the April 18 polls are kept. Besides the PA, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime), who was in charge of election duty that day, and police personnel present there reportedly allowed a woman tahsildar and three other polling staff to enter the room. The Tahsildar is now under suspension. The court had passed the interim order on a petition filed by CPI(M)'s Venkatesan. According to Venkatesan, the tahsildar allegedly trespassed into the documents storage room on April 20 without any authority and remained there for three hours. Venkatesan has submitted that three staff members of Madurai Municipal Corporation had also accompanied her. Alleging that the unlawful incident would not have occurred without the knowledge of District Collector Natarajan, who is the Returning Officer, Venkatesan had sought an interim direction for appointment of a special observer of the rank of an IAS officer for counting the postal ballots. Besides, the petitioner also sought three-tier security for the counting centre, transfer of the returning officer and appointment of a Special Investigation Team.

Storeroom security breach of Madurai Lok Sabha seat eroded public confidence: Election Commission

madras-high-court

Madras High Court, News on Madras High Court, stories on Madras High Court, articles on Madras High Court, Madras High Court stories at Wion, Madras High Court news, Madras High Court latest news

madras high-court