Madras High Court Saturday directed the Election Commission to initiate disciplinary action or prosecution against PA (General) to Madurai District Collector and two officials for allowing polling staff to enter a storage room where records of the April 18 Lok Sabha polls to the Madurai constituency 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 tehsildar and three other polling staff to enter the room.

The court directed the EC to take the action on those involved as pointed out by the Enquiry Officer after it observed that "absolutely no action" was taken against the PA (General), of the Collector, the ACP and the policemen post the incident.

The division bench, comprising Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad, passed the interim order on the petition filed by Su Venkatesan, the CPI(M) candidate who contested in Madurai Parliamentary Constituency.

According to the petitioner, the tehsildar allegedly trespassed into the documents storage room on April 20 without any authority and remained there for three hours.

The petitioner 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 SIT.

When the bench was inclined to pass an order on District Collector Natarajan, who is also the Returning Officer (RO) and other officials, ECI's counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan produced a letter dated April 27 of the EC Secretary.

The letter stated that S Nagarajan would replace Natarajan and Shantha Kumar would be Assistant Returning Officer (ARO) in place of Guru Chandran with immediate effect.

The judges recorded the EC's submission that disciplinary action would be initiated against the erring RO and ARO in response to its observation on whether the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, was powerless in the matter.

The bench said it was not going into the controversy as to who was empowered to initiate disciplinary action or prosecution against the erring officials and posted the matter for further hearing to April 30.&nbsp;

Madras High Court Saturday directed the Election Commission to initiate disciplinary action or prosecution against PA (General) to Madurai District Collector and two officials for allowing polling staff to enter a storage room where records of the April 18 Lok Sabha polls to the Madurai constituency are kept.

Madras High Court Saturday directed the Election Commission to initiate disciplinary action or prosecution against PA (General) to Madurai District Collector and two officials for allowing polling staff to enter a storage room where records of the April 18 Lok Sabha polls to the Madurai constituency 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 tehsildar and three other polling staff to enter the room. The court directed the EC to take the action on those involved as pointed out by the Enquiry Officer after it observed that "absolutely no action" was taken against the PA (General), of the Collector, the ACP and the policemen post the incident. The division bench, comprising Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad, passed the interim order on the petition filed by Su Venkatesan, the CPI(M) candidate who contested in Madurai Parliamentary Constituency. According to the petitioner, the tehsildar allegedly trespassed into the documents storage room on April 20 without any authority and remained there for three hours. The petitioner 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 SIT. When the bench was inclined to pass an order on District Collector Natarajan, who is also the Returning Officer (RO) and other officials, ECI's counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan produced a letter dated April 27 of the EC Secretary. The letter stated that S Nagarajan would replace Natarajan and Shantha Kumar would be Assistant Returning Officer (ARO) in place of Guru Chandran with immediate effect. The judges recorded the EC's submission that disciplinary action would be initiated against the erring RO and ARO in response to its observation on whether the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, was powerless in the matter. The bench said it was not going into the controversy as to who was empowered to initiate disciplinary action or prosecution against the erring officials and posted the matter for further hearing to April 30.

Initiate disciplinary action against erring poll officials: High Court to Election Commission

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday lifted the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/if-madras-high-court-doesnt-decide-by-april-24-ban-on-tiktok-will-be-lifted-supreme-court-212501">ban on TikTok video application</a>.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of India told Chinese company Bytedance Technology, the maker of hugely popular video-sharing app TikTok, that if Madras the High Court fails to decide by April 24 its plea for relief, then its ban order will stand vacated.

The company had told the court that the Madras High Court gave the order banning the app in India without hearing its side of the story. It also said that the ban has led to a loss of crores of rupees.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Madurai bench of the Madras High Court lifts ban on TikTok video app. <a href="https://t.co/1oFP4oYncs">pic.twitter.com/1oFP4oYncs</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1121041727882706945?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 24, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Supreme Court bench then said the next date of hearing is April 24, and if the high court doesn't decide on the plea against the ban, the order will stand vacated.

Google had last week blocked access to TikTok on its Play Store in India. The decision was taken hours after the Madras High Court refused a request by Bytedance Technology to suspend a ban on TikTok, putting its future in one of its key markets in doubt.

The Madras High Court had on April 3 asked the central government to ban TikTok, saying it encouraged pornography and made child users vulnerable to sexual predators. It's ruling came after an individual launched 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 Madurai bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday lifted the ban on TikTok video application. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of India told Chinese company Bytedance Technology, the maker of hugely popular video-sharing app TikTok, that if Madras the High Court fails to decide by April 24 its plea for relief, then its ban order will stand vacated.

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday lifted the ban on TikTok video application. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of India told Chinese company Bytedance Technology, the maker of hugely popular video-sharing app TikTok, that if Madras the High Court fails to decide by April 24 its plea for relief, then its ban order will stand vacated. The company had told the court that the Madras High Court gave the order banning the app in India without hearing its side of the story. It also said that the ban has led to a loss of crores of rupees. Madurai bench of the Madras High Court lifts ban on TikTok video app. pic.twitter.com/1oFP4oYncs — ANI (@ANI) April 24, 2019 × The Supreme Court bench then said the next date of hearing is April 24, and if the high court doesn't decide on the plea against the ban, the order will stand vacated. Google had last week blocked access to TikTok on its Play Store in India. The decision was taken hours after the Madras High Court refused a request by Bytedance Technology to suspend a ban on TikTok, putting its future in one of its key markets in doubt. The Madras High Court had on April 3 asked the central government to ban TikTok, saying it encouraged pornography and made child users vulnerable to sexual predators. It's ruling came after an individual launched 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.

Madras High Court lifts ban on TikTok video app

The Supreme Court of India on Monday told Chinese company Bytedance Technology, maker of hugely popular video sharing app TikTok, that if Madras the High Court fails to decide by April 24 its plea for relief then its ban order will stand vacated.

The company had told the court that the Madras High Court gave the order banning the app in India without hearing its side of the story. It also said that the ban has led to a los of crores of rupees.

The Supreme Court bench then said the next date of hearing is April 24, and if the high court doesn't decide on the plea against ban, the order will stand vacated.

Google had last week <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-play-store-blocks-chinese-app-tiktok-in-india-after-court-order-211003">blocked access to TikTok</a> on its Play Store in India. The decision was taken hours after the Madras High Court refused a request by Bytedance Technology to suspend a ban on TikTok, putting its future in one of its key markets in doubt.

The Madras High Court had on April 3 asked the central government to ban TikTok, saying it encouraged pornography and made child users vulnerable to sexual predators. It's ruling came after an individual launched a 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.

TikTok, which allows users to create and share short videos with special effects, has become hugely popular in India but has been criticised by some politicians who say its content is inappropriate.

It had been downloaded more than 240 million times in India, app analytics firm Sensor Tower said in February. More than 30 million users in India installed it in January 2019, 12 times more than in the same month last year.

Jokes, clips and footage related to India's thriving movie industry dominate the app's platform, along with memes and videos in which youngsters, some scantily clad, lip-sync and dance to popular music.

Bytedance challenged the Madras High Court's ban order in the Supreme Court earlier this month, saying it went against freedom of speech rights in India.

The top court had <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refuses-to-stay-madras-hc-order-on-tiktok-app-210536">referred the case back</a> to the Madras High Court, where a judge rejected Bytedance's request to put the ban order on hold.

TikTok had earlier said in a statement that it had faith in the Indian judicial system and was "optimistic about an outcome that would be well received by millions" of its users.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India on Monday told Chinese company Bytedance Technology, maker of hugely popular video sharing app TikTok, that if Madras the High Court fails to decide by April 24 its plea for relief then its ban order will stand vacated.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday told Chinese company Bytedance Technology, maker of hugely popular video sharing app TikTok, that if Madras the High Court fails to decide by April 24 its plea for relief then its ban order will stand vacated. The company had told the court that the Madras High Court gave the order banning the app in India without hearing its side of the story. It also said that the ban has led to a los of crores of rupees. The Supreme Court bench then said the next date of hearing is April 24, and if the high court doesn't decide on the plea against ban, the order will stand vacated. Google had last week blocked access to TikTok on its Play Store in India. The decision was taken hours after the Madras High Court refused a request by Bytedance Technology to suspend a ban on TikTok, putting its future in one of its key markets in doubt. The Madras High Court had on April 3 asked the central government to ban TikTok, saying it encouraged pornography and made child users vulnerable to sexual predators. It's ruling came after an individual launched a 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. TikTok, which allows users to create and share short videos with special effects, has become hugely popular in India but has been criticised by some politicians who say its content is inappropriate. It had been downloaded more than 240 million times in India, app analytics firm Sensor Tower said in February. More than 30 million users in India installed it in January 2019, 12 times more than in the same month last year. Jokes, clips and footage related to India's thriving movie industry dominate the app's platform, along with memes and videos in which youngsters, some scantily clad, lip-sync and dance to popular music. Bytedance challenged the Madras High Court's ban order in the Supreme Court earlier this month, saying it went against freedom of speech rights in India. The top court had referred the case back to the Madras High Court, where a judge rejected Bytedance's request to put the ban order on hold. TikTok had earlier said in a statement that it had faith in the Indian judicial system and was "optimistic about an outcome that would be well received by millions" of its users. (With inputs from agencies)

If Madras High Court doesn't decide by April 24, ban on TikTok will be lifted: Supreme Court

Madras High Court today upheld the decision of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/elections-commission-calls-off-polls-in-tamil-nadus-vellore-over-cash-haul-210961">Election Commission of India to cancel</a> the election to Vellore Lok Sabha constituency.

The Lok Sabha election to the Vellore constituency was cancelled on Tuesday by the EC following the recovery of a huge amount of cash allegedly from an associate of a DMK leader.

The EC took the decision after the district police had filed a complaint against the accused, Kathir Anand, as well as two party functionaries on the basis of a report from the Income Tax department on April 10. Polling in Vellore was scheduled on April 18.

Anand was charged under the Representation of the People Act for giving "wrong information" in his election affidavit filed along with his nomination papers, the police said. The other two, identified as Srinivasan and Damodaran, were booked under bribery charges.

The recommendation was sent to the legislative department of the law ministry Tuesday which issued the notification.

On March 30, Income Tax officials had conducted searches at the residence of Anand's father Durai Murugan over suspected use of unaccounted money for electioneering, and seized Rs 10.50 lakh in alleged "excess" cash.

Two days later, they claimed to have seized Rs 11.53 crore from a cement godown belonging to a DMK leader's associate in the same district.

(Inputs: ANI, PTI)

Madras High Court today upheld the decision of Election Commission of India to cancel the election to Vellore Lok Sabha constituency. The Lok Sabha election to the Vellore constituency was cancelled on Tuesday by the EC following the recovery of a huge amount of cash allegedly from an associate of a DMK leader.

Madras High Court today upheld the decision of Election Commission of India to cancel the election to Vellore Lok Sabha constituency. The Lok Sabha election to the Vellore constituency was cancelled on Tuesday by the EC following the recovery of a huge amount of cash allegedly from an associate of a DMK leader. The EC took the decision after the district police had filed a complaint against the accused, Kathir Anand, as well as two party functionaries on the basis of a report from the Income Tax department on April 10. Polling in Vellore was scheduled on April 18. Anand was charged under the Representation of the People Act for giving "wrong information" in his election affidavit filed along with his nomination papers, the police said. The other two, identified as Srinivasan and Damodaran, were booked under bribery charges. The recommendation was sent to the legislative department of the law ministry Tuesday which issued the notification. On March 30, Income Tax officials had conducted searches at the residence of Anand's father Durai Murugan over suspected use of unaccounted money for electioneering, and seized Rs 10.50 lakh in alleged "excess" cash. Two days later, they claimed to have seized Rs 11.53 crore from a cement godown belonging to a DMK leader's associate in the same district. (Inputs: ANI, PTI)

Madras High Court upholds Election Commission's decision to cancel Vellore Lok Sabha polls

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay Madras High Court's order imposing a ban on Chinese video app TikTok.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi posted the matter for hearing on April 22 as the case is coming up for hearing in the Madras High Court tomorrow.

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by Chinese company ByteDance against the High Court which said there were over billion downloads of its app and the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had passed an ex-parte order.

In its April 3 order, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had directed the Centre to ban the mobile app, voicing concern over "pornographic and inappropriate content" being made available through the app.

The order also restrained the media from telecasting videos made using the app.

The order had come after the court noted that through this app, children are being exposed to inappropriate content including pornography, adding that minors are also being exposed to strangers through this app.

"It is evident from media reports that pornography and inappropriate contents are made available in this kind of cyber applications. The children are exposed to strangers and there is a possibility of the photographs and other private details of the children are being landed in the hands of predators or third parties," the bench had observed.

"On March 27, an auto driver was arrested for posting a video that included a woman from Chennai on TikTok Mobile App. A 15-year-old girl is said to have committed suicide at Mumbai for being scolded by her grandmother for use of TikTok Mobile App. An old man is said to have fallen in the waterfalls in Valparai, while taking a selfie or Tik Tok video. Before many tragic incidents would occur, the government has to take appropriate steps," the plea filed by Madurai senior lawyer Muttu Kumar read.

TikTok, an app that allows users to create and share short videos with special effects, has over 54 million monthly active users in India.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay Madras High Court's order imposing a ban on Chinese video app TikTok. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi posted the matter for hearing on April 22 as the case is coming up for hearing in the Madras High Court tomorrow.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay Madras High Court's order imposing a ban on Chinese video app TikTok. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi posted the matter for hearing on April 22 as the case is coming up for hearing in the Madras High Court tomorrow. The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by Chinese company ByteDance against the High Court which said there were over billion downloads of its app and the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had passed an ex-parte order. In its April 3 order, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had directed the Centre to ban the mobile app, voicing concern over "pornographic and inappropriate content" being made available through the app. The order also restrained the media from telecasting videos made using the app. The order had come after the court noted that through this app, children are being exposed to inappropriate content including pornography, adding that minors are also being exposed to strangers through this app. "It is evident from media reports that pornography and inappropriate contents are made available in this kind of cyber applications. The children are exposed to strangers and there is a possibility of the photographs and other private details of the children are being landed in the hands of predators or third parties," the bench had observed. "On March 27, an auto driver was arrested for posting a video that included a woman from Chennai on TikTok Mobile App. A 15-year-old girl is said to have committed suicide at Mumbai for being scolded by her grandmother for use of TikTok Mobile App. An old man is said to have fallen in the waterfalls in Valparai, while taking a selfie or Tik Tok video. Before many tragic incidents would occur, the government has to take appropriate steps," the plea filed by Madurai senior lawyer Muttu Kumar read. TikTok, an app that allows users to create and share short videos with special effects, has over 54 million monthly active users in India.

Supreme Court refuses to stay Madras HC order on TikTok app

After the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ban-chinese-video-app-tiktok-madras-high-court-to-government-207807">Madras High Court called for a ban</a> on the video app TikTok, China's Bytedance Technology Co said in a request to the Supreme Court to quash the directive.

Bytedance which is one of the world's most valuable start-ups. The company's TikTok app lets users create and share short videos with special effects. It has become popular in rural India.

TikTok, whose video-only interface makes it easier to use than platforms such as Facebook or Twitter, has been downloaded more than 240 million times in India, says app analytics firm Sensor Tower.

A ban "amounts to curtailing of the rights of the citizens of India...who have been using the platform everyday to express themselves and create content," the company said in a court filing, asking for the order to be quashed.

The company's Monday filing is not public and has not previously been reported. The Supreme Court has set next Monday for a hearing.

Bytedance did not respond to a request for comment. India's information technology ministry also did not respond.

Last week, the Madras High Court had asked the federal government to ban TikTok, saying it encouraged pornography and made child users vulnerable to sexual predators.

TikTok's inappropriate content was a dangerous aspect of the app, it added.

Bytedance said users flagged only a tiny proportion of TikTok videos, showing that a "very minuscule" proportion of its content was considered inappropriate or obscene. TikTok was primarily used to circulate amusing videos, it added.

It also argued that it could not be held liable for content posted by users.

In its filing, the company said TikTok had experienced immense success in India, which fuelled controversy. Bytedance employs more than 250 people in India and plans more investment as it expands the business, it added.

After the Madras High Court called for a ban on the video app TikTok, China's Bytedance Technology Co said in a request to the Supreme Court to quash the directive.

After the Madras High Court called for a ban on the video app TikTok, China's Bytedance Technology Co said in a request to the Supreme Court to quash the directive. Bytedance which is one of the world's most valuable start-ups. The company's TikTok app lets users create and share short videos with special effects. It has become popular in rural India. TikTok, whose video-only interface makes it easier to use than platforms such as Facebook or Twitter, has been downloaded more than 240 million times in India, says app analytics firm Sensor Tower. A ban "amounts to curtailing of the rights of the citizens of India...who have been using the platform everyday to express themselves and create content," the company said in a court filing, asking for the order to be quashed. The company's Monday filing is not public and has not previously been reported. The Supreme Court has set next Monday for a hearing. Bytedance did not respond to a request for comment. India's information technology ministry also did not respond. Last week, the Madras High Court had asked the federal government to ban TikTok, saying it encouraged pornography and made child users vulnerable to sexual predators. TikTok's inappropriate content was a dangerous aspect of the app, it added. Bytedance said users flagged only a tiny proportion of TikTok videos, showing that a "very minuscule" proportion of its content was considered inappropriate or obscene. TikTok was primarily used to circulate amusing videos, it added. It also argued that it could not be held liable for content posted by users. In its filing, the company said TikTok had experienced immense success in India, which fuelled controversy. Bytedance employs more than 250 people in India and plans more investment as it expands the business, it added.

Ban will amount to curtailing rights of citizens of India: TikTok to court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear on April 15 a plea challenging a recent Madras High Court order directing the Centre to ban the "TikTok" app over concerns about access to pornographic content through it.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna agreed to hear the plea filed by Chinese company ByteDance, which said there were over billion downloads of the app and the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court had passed an ex-parte order.

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court had, on April 3, directed the Centre to ban mobile application "TikTok" as it voiced concern over the "pornographic and inappropriate contents" being made available through such apps.

It had directed the media not to telecast video clips made with TikTok. The app allows users to create short videos and then share them.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear on April 15 a plea challenging a recent Madras High Court order directing the Centre to ban the "TikTok" app over concerns about access to pornographic content through it.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear on April 15 a plea challenging a recent Madras High Court order directing the Centre to ban the "TikTok" app over concerns about access to pornographic content through it. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna agreed to hear the plea filed by Chinese company ByteDance, which said there were over billion downloads of the app and the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court had passed an ex-parte order. The Madurai bench of Madras High Court had, on April 3, directed the Centre to ban mobile application "TikTok" as it voiced concern over the "pornographic and inappropriate contents" being made available through such apps. It had directed the media not to telecast video clips made with TikTok. The app allows users to create short videos and then share them.

Supreme Court to hear on April 15 plea challenging Madras High Court order asking Centre to ban TikTok app

The Madras High Court on Monday quashed the proceedings of land acquisition for the 8-lane Chennai-Salem Expressway project that was announced in early 2018 by the AIADMK. The court said that the project requires a mega realignment as the proposed route would have an adverse effect on environment.

A special bench of Justice T S Sivagnanam and Justice Bhavani Subbarayan passed the order allowing a batch of petitions by 35 land owners and PMK leader Anbumani Ramadoss.

With an estimated cost of Rs 10,000 crore, this infrastructure project had been a major political issue in the southern state that goes to polls on April 18.

The project had been facing stiff opposition from farmers and environmentalists.

The proposed 8-lane 277-km greenfield expressway 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 Detailed Project Report (DPR), it was meant to pass via five districts, namely Kanchipuram, Tiruvannamalai, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri and Salem.

However, the project faced opposition from various groups on the grounds that the 7500 acres of land, which will be acquired for the project, includes agricultural land, villages, orchards, and reserve forests. Land acquisition and compensation for the same were major roadblocks. The protesters were also 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 led by Chief Minister Edappadi K Palanisami was keen on having this project implemented, the opposition party DMK had stood with the protesters and also said that they were against its implementation. Interestingly, PMK leader Anbumani Ramadoss was among those who had earlier filed a case against the project. But despite their differences, the PMK in February joined hands with the AIAMDK-BJP alliance in Tamil Nadu and will be contesting from seven seats.

Speaking to reporters after the verdict this morning, Advocate Kamaraj who represented the farmers said, "This verdict is for the farmers and the public and it would cause a setback for the state government."

Reacting to the verdict, while campaigning in his constituency Dharmapuri, PMK leader Anbumani Ramadoss said, "Though we are in an alliance with the AIADMK, we are against this project and support the cause of the farmers."

The court had on December 14, 2018, reserved orders on the batch of petitions, challenging land acquisition proceedings.

The Madras High Court on Monday quashed the proceedings of land acquisition for the 8-lane Chennai-Salem Expressway project that was announced in early 2018 by the AIADMK.

The Madras High Court on Monday quashed the proceedings of land acquisition for the 8-lane Chennai-Salem Expressway project that was announced in early 2018 by the AIADMK. The court said that the project requires a mega realignment as the proposed route would have an adverse effect on environment. A special bench of Justice T S Sivagnanam and Justice Bhavani Subbarayan passed the order allowing a batch of petitions by 35 land owners and PMK leader Anbumani Ramadoss. With an estimated cost of Rs 10,000 crore, this infrastructure project had been a major political issue in the southern state that goes to polls on April 18. The project had been facing stiff opposition from farmers and environmentalists. The proposed 8-lane 277-km greenfield expressway 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 Detailed Project Report (DPR), it was meant to pass via five districts, namely Kanchipuram, Tiruvannamalai, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri and Salem. However, the project faced opposition from various groups on the grounds that the 7500 acres of land, which will be acquired for the project, includes agricultural land, villages, orchards, and reserve forests. Land acquisition and compensation for the same were major roadblocks. The protesters were also 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 led by Chief Minister Edappadi K Palanisami was keen on having this project implemented, the opposition party DMK had stood with the protesters and also said that they were against its implementation. Interestingly, PMK leader Anbumani Ramadoss was among those who had earlier filed a case against the project. But despite their differences, the PMK in February joined hands with the AIAMDK-BJP alliance in Tamil Nadu and will be contesting from seven seats. Speaking to reporters after the verdict this morning, Advocate Kamaraj who represented the farmers said, "This verdict is for the farmers and the public and it would cause a setback for the state government." Reacting to the verdict, while campaigning in his constituency Dharmapuri, PMK leader Anbumani Ramadoss said, "Though we are in an alliance with the AIADMK, we are against this project and support the cause of the farmers." The court had on December 14, 2018, reserved orders on the batch of petitions, challenging land acquisition proceedings.

Days before polls, Madras High Court quashes land acquisition proceedings for Chennai-Salem Expressway

The Madras High Court on Wednesday asked the government to ban Chinese video app TikTok, saying it was "encouraging pornography".

Created by Beijing Bytedance Technology Co, TikTok allows users to create and share short videos with special effects. It has become hugely popular in rural India.

Jokes, clips and footage related to India's thriving movie industry dominate the platform, along with memes and videos in which youngsters, some scantily clad, lip-sync and dance to popular music.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iCB0fMjhXzQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Earlier, IT minister of Tamil Nadu had described some of its more suggestive dance content as "unbearable".

The Madras High Court, which has been hearing a public interest litigation against the app, on Wednesday said children who were using TikTok were vulnerable to exposure to sexual predators.

"Inappropriate" content was TikTok's "dangerous aspect", the court said in an order, adding that "there is a possibility of the children contacting strangers directly".

A TikTok spokesman said the company was committed to abiding by local laws and was awaiting a copy of the court’s order, following which it would take appropriate action.

"Maintaining a safe and positive in-app environment ... is our priority," he said.

As well as asking the government to ban the application and prohibit its downloads, the court said TikTok videos should not be broadcast by media.

TikTok, whose video-only interface makes it less elaborate and easier to use than platforms such as Facebook or Twitter, has been downloaded more than 240 million times in India, according to app analytics firm Sensor Tower.

The Madras High Court on Wednesday asked the government to ban Chinese video app TikTok, saying it was "encouraging pornography". Created by Beijing Bytedance Technology Co, TikTok allows users to create and share short videos with special effects.

The Madras High Court on Wednesday asked the government to ban Chinese video app TikTok, saying it was "encouraging pornography". Created by Beijing Bytedance Technology Co, TikTok allows users to create and share short videos with special effects. It has become hugely popular in rural India. Jokes, clips and footage related to India's thriving movie industry dominate the platform, along with memes and videos in which youngsters, some scantily clad, lip-sync and dance to popular music. Earlier, IT minister of Tamil Nadu had described some of its more suggestive dance content as "unbearable". The Madras High Court, which has been hearing a public interest litigation against the app, on Wednesday said children who were using TikTok were vulnerable to exposure to sexual predators. "Inappropriate" content was TikTok's "dangerous aspect", the court said in an order, adding that "there is a possibility of the children contacting strangers directly". A TikTok spokesman said the company was committed to abiding by local laws and was awaiting a copy of the court’s order, following which it would take appropriate action. "Maintaining a safe and positive in-app environment ... is our priority," he said. As well as asking the government to ban the application and prohibit its downloads, the court said TikTok videos should not be broadcast by media. TikTok, whose video-only interface makes it less elaborate and easier to use than platforms such as Facebook or Twitter, has been downloaded more than 240 million times in India, according to app analytics firm Sensor Tower.

Ban Chinese video app TikTok: Madras High Court to government

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the conviction and life imprisonment awarded to Saravana Bhavan restaurant chain owner P Rajagopal for murdering one of his employees in 2001.

The judgement was announced by a bench headed by Justice NV Ramana.

Rajagopal has been accused of murdering his worker Prince Santhakumar in 2001, as the latter married the lady whom businessman wanted to tie the knot with.

The accused was convicted and awarded life imprisonment by the Madras High Court. Later in 2009, the top court granted him bail on medical grounds.

Rajagopal has been given time till April 7 to surrender before the court.

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the conviction and life imprisonment awarded to Saravana Bhavan restaurant chain owner P Rajagopal for murdering one of his employees in 2001.

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the conviction and life imprisonment awarded to Saravana Bhavan restaurant chain owner P Rajagopal for murdering one of his employees in 2001. The judgement was announced by a bench headed by Justice NV Ramana. Rajagopal has been accused of murdering his worker Prince Santhakumar in 2001, as the latter married the lady whom businessman wanted to tie the knot with. The accused was convicted and awarded life imprisonment by the Madras High Court. Later in 2009, the top court granted him bail on medical grounds. Rajagopal has been given time till April 7 to surrender before the court.

Supreme Court upholds conviction, life imprisonment of Saravana Bhavan founder in murder case

The Madras High Court Wednesday refused to quash charges framed against former Union Communications and Information Technology Minister Dayanidhi Maran, his brother Kalanithi Maran and others in the "illegal" telephone exchange case, rapping them for approaching the court for the third time at this stage.

Directing the CBI court to complete the proceedings within four months, Justice N Anand Venkatesh said if the petitioners adopt any dilatory tactics, it was open to the trial court to insist upon their presence and remand them in custody as laid down by the Supreme Court.

He said the court was convinced that the trial court had fulfilled all the requirements before framing the charges and there was absolutely no ground to interfere with it.

Judge R Vasanthi of the XXIV Additional Sessions Court for CBI cases had on January 30 framed the charges against each of the seven accused for offences under the Indian Penal Code -- criminal conspiracy (section 120-B), criminal breach of trust (409) and cheating (420) -- and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

According to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Dayanidhi Maran misused his official position as the then minister for communications and information technology in the UPA I government and got private telephone exchanges installed at his residences in Chennai which were used for business transactions of the Sun Network, owned by his brother Kalanithi Maran, during 2004-06.

It claimed over 700 high-speed telecommunication lines were installed for which bills were not raised by BSNL, causing the exchequer a loss of Rs 1.78 crore.

The Maran brothers and five other accused, who have denied the charges against them in the trial court, in their present petition sought quashing of the charges framed against them, contending that relevant guidelines were not followed by the trial court.

Rejecting their plea, Justice Venkatesh said this was the third time the high court was called upon to interfere with the proceedings in the trial court at the stage of framing of charges.

If the petitioners were confident that none of the charges against them can be sustained, they must willingly face the trial and get an honourable acquittal, he said.

But, they had ensured that the case did not proceed beyond the stage of framing of charges and came up with the same quash plea every time by giving it a different form.

The judge said when the prosecution has placed materials before the court prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations, the trial must be held.

The petitioners do not want to face the trial and establish their defence in accordance with law, he said, adding they had consumed sufficient judicial time of this court.

Justice Venkatesh said the high court cannot interfere with the proceedings of trial court at each and every step by invoking section 482 of the CrPC.

He directed the CBI court to conduct the trial strictly in accordance with section 309 of the CrPC and the guidelines given by the apex court.

Besides the Marans, grandnephews of late DMK president M Karunanidhi, the other accused are former BSNL general manager K Brahmanathan, former deputy general manager M P Velusamy, Dayanidhi Maran's private secretary V Gauthaman and some Sun TV officials.

On March 14 last year, the CBI court had discharged all the accused, holding there was no prima facie case against them.

But, the Madras High Court had on July 25 quashed the order, holding that there was "heaps" of materials against the Maran brothers and other accused to proceed.

The high court order was challenged by Dayanidhi Maran in the Supreme Court which rejected his plea and directed him to face trial in the special court, following which the charges were framed afresh in January this year.&nbsp;

The Madras High Court Wednesday refused to quash charges framed against former Union Communications and Information Technology Minister Dayanidhi Maran, his brother Kalanithi Maran and others in the "illegal" telephone exchange case, rapping them for approaching the court for the third time at this stage.

The Madras High Court Wednesday refused to quash charges framed against former Union Communications and Information Technology Minister Dayanidhi Maran, his brother Kalanithi Maran and others in the "illegal" telephone exchange case, rapping them for approaching the court for the third time at this stage. Directing the CBI court to complete the proceedings within four months, Justice N Anand Venkatesh said if the petitioners adopt any dilatory tactics, it was open to the trial court to insist upon their presence and remand them in custody as laid down by the Supreme Court. He said the court was convinced that the trial court had fulfilled all the requirements before framing the charges and there was absolutely no ground to interfere with it. Judge R Vasanthi of the XXIV Additional Sessions Court for CBI cases had on January 30 framed the charges against each of the seven accused for offences under the Indian Penal Code -- criminal conspiracy (section 120-B), criminal breach of trust (409) and cheating (420) -- and the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Dayanidhi Maran misused his official position as the then minister for communications and information technology in the UPA I government and got private telephone exchanges installed at his residences in Chennai which were used for business transactions of the Sun Network, owned by his brother Kalanithi Maran, during 2004-06. It claimed over 700 high-speed telecommunication lines were installed for which bills were not raised by BSNL, causing the exchequer a loss of Rs 1.78 crore. The Maran brothers and five other accused, who have denied the charges against them in the trial court, in their present petition sought quashing of the charges framed against them, contending that relevant guidelines were not followed by the trial court. Rejecting their plea, Justice Venkatesh said this was the third time the high court was called upon to interfere with the proceedings in the trial court at the stage of framing of charges. If the petitioners were confident that none of the charges against them can be sustained, they must willingly face the trial and get an honourable acquittal, he said. But, they had ensured that the case did not proceed beyond the stage of framing of charges and came up with the same quash plea every time by giving it a different form. The judge said when the prosecution has placed materials before the court prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations, the trial must be held. The petitioners do not want to face the trial and establish their defence in accordance with law, he said, adding they had consumed sufficient judicial time of this court. Justice Venkatesh said the high court cannot interfere with the proceedings of trial court at each and every step by invoking section 482 of the CrPC. He directed the CBI court to conduct the trial strictly in accordance with section 309 of the CrPC and the guidelines given by the apex court. Besides the Marans, grandnephews of late DMK president M Karunanidhi, the other accused are former BSNL general manager K Brahmanathan, former deputy general manager M P Velusamy, Dayanidhi Maran's private secretary V Gauthaman and some Sun TV officials. On March 14 last year, the CBI court had discharged all the accused, holding there was no prima facie case against them. But, the Madras High Court had on July 25 quashed the order, holding that there was "heaps" of materials against the Maran brothers and other accused to proceed. The high court order was challenged by Dayanidhi Maran in the Supreme Court which rejected his plea and directed him to face trial in the special court, following which the charges were framed afresh in January this year.

HC refuses to quash charges against Dayanidhi Maran, others in telephone exchange case

An inquiry commission probing late Tamil Nadu chief minister <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/jayalalithas-murder-mystery-under-investigation-26906">Jayalalithaa's death</a> on Friday submitted in the Madras High Court that the Apollo Hospital could not seek to stall its proceedings at a stage when 90 per cent of the hearing was over and that too after participating in it.&nbsp;

Opposing the hospital's plea for restraining it from looking into the medical treatment given to Jayalalithaa, the Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry also contended before a bench of justices R Subbiah and Krishnan Ramaswamy that such a relief could not be sought without first challenging the terms of reference of the panel.&nbsp;

Senior Counsel ARL Sundaresan, who presented the final arguments on behalf of the commission, termed the hospital's petition against going into the records on the treatment given to Jayalalithaa as a knee-jerk reaction.&nbsp;

If the prejudice argument of the hospital was to be accepted, the inquiry had to be wound up, he said.&nbsp;

The counsel said the commission was yet to prepare its final report as it had to question the politicians concerned. Till now, only doctors, officials and others have been examined.&nbsp;

The Apollo Hospitals was free to challenge the final report of the commission once it was out, but they could not challenge the proceedings at this stage, he said.&nbsp;

Rejecting the charge of bias and prejudice levelled by the hospital, he said a bundle of facts had already been collected and recommendations would be made by the commission in its report to the government, which would then take a call on accepting or rejecting those.&nbsp;

Legally, such allegations could not be levelled against a commission of inquiry since it was not an adjudicating authority, he added.&nbsp;

Sundaresan said the ultimate mandate of the commission was to find out the truth and rule out rumours regarding the circumstances leading to Jayalalithaa's death.&nbsp;

Noting that 90 per cent of the proceedings was already completed, he said the hospital could not seek to stall the proceedings without challenging the government order setting up the panel or the terms of reference, that too after participating in the hearings so far.&nbsp;

Recording the submissions, the bench directed the commission and the hospital to file their written arguments by March 12 and adjourned the matter to that date.&nbsp;

Jayalalithaa died on December 5, 2016, over two months after being treated for various complications, including infection, since September 22.&nbsp;

The state government had set up the inquiry commission headed by retired high court judge A Arumughaswamy to look into the circumstances leading to the death of the late AIADMK supremo, citing doubts expressed by various people.

An inquiry commission probing late Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa's death on Friday submitted in the Madras High Court that the Apollo Hospital could not seek to stall its proceedings at a stage when 90 per cent of the hearing was over and that too after participating in it.

An inquiry commission probing late Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa's death on Friday submitted in the Madras High Court that the Apollo Hospital could not seek to stall its proceedings at a stage when 90 per cent of the hearing was over and that too after participating in it. Opposing the hospital's plea for restraining it from looking into the medical treatment given to Jayalalithaa, the Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry also contended before a bench of justices R Subbiah and Krishnan Ramaswamy that such a relief could not be sought without first challenging the terms of reference of the panel. Senior Counsel ARL Sundaresan, who presented the final arguments on behalf of the commission, termed the hospital's petition against going into the records on the treatment given to Jayalalithaa as a knee-jerk reaction. If the prejudice argument of the hospital was to be accepted, the inquiry had to be wound up, he said. The counsel said the commission was yet to prepare its final report as it had to question the politicians concerned. Till now, only doctors, officials and others have been examined. The Apollo Hospitals was free to challenge the final report of the commission once it was out, but they could not challenge the proceedings at this stage, he said. Rejecting the charge of bias and prejudice levelled by the hospital, he said a bundle of facts had already been collected and recommendations would be made by the commission in its report to the government, which would then take a call on accepting or rejecting those. Legally, such allegations could not be levelled against a commission of inquiry since it was not an adjudicating authority, he added. Sundaresan said the ultimate mandate of the commission was to find out the truth and rule out rumours regarding the circumstances leading to Jayalalithaa's death. Noting that 90 per cent of the proceedings was already completed, he said the hospital could not seek to stall the proceedings without challenging the government order setting up the panel or the terms of reference, that too after participating in the hearings so far. Recording the submissions, the bench directed the commission and the hospital to file their written arguments by March 12 and adjourned the matter to that date. Jayalalithaa died on December 5, 2016, over two months after being treated for various complications, including infection, since September 22. The state government had set up the inquiry commission headed by retired high court judge A Arumughaswamy to look into the circumstances leading to the death of the late AIADMK supremo, citing doubts expressed by various people.

Jayalalithaa death probe panel opposes Apollo Hospital's plea, says 90 per cent work over

The Madras High Court Friday declined to grant any interim relief to Vedanta group's Sterlite for carrying out maintenance work at its closed copper smelter unit in Tuticorin in Tamil Nadu.

Hearing a petition by the company challenging the closure order, a division bench of justices M Sathyanarayanan and M Nirmal Kumar, however, cautioned the state government, under whose control the unit was now, it would be held responsible in the event of any mishap or environmental damage.

It recorded an undertaking given by Advocate General Vijay Narayan, who appeared for the government, that the state would take all such responsibility and posted the matter to March 27 for further hearing.

The bench also directed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) to file its reply by then.

Sterlite in its petition, filed in line with the Supreme Court's recent suggestion, has challenged the May 23, 2018 orders of TNPCB refusing renewal of consent to the plant as well as permanent closure, terming them as wholly illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires.

The state government ordered the permanent closure in the wake of violent protests against Sterlite that led to the killing of 13 people in police firing on May 22 on a huge crowd in Tuticorin.

The locals were protesting against environment pollution being allegedly caused by the factory.

The apex court on February 18 had set aside the order of the National Green Tribunal allowing opening of the copper unit but gave the liberty to the company to approach the high court against the closure order.

A bench of justices R F Nariman and Navin Sinha had said if such a petition is filed by the company, it can seek an interim relief considering the fact that their plant at Tuticorin has been shut down since April 9, 2018.&nbsp;

Accordingly, the company moved the high court Wednesday.

When the petition came up for hearing, senior counsel Aryama Sundaram, who appeared for Sterlite, contended that there had been a motivated political campaign against the company from its inception in 1996.

The factory had been functioning with consent orders, including permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forest for expansion, he submitted.

In view of the company securing the nod for expansion, the protests were held, leading to violence and police firing. This was the reason for the closure of the factory, he said.&nbsp;

The counsel said the TNPCB had refused to renew the consent citing what he called five untenable reasons. This was followed by another four orders and six other consequential orders before the final closure of the factory.

Sundaram said the unit was now under the control of the District Collector, who has no technical know-how to maintain the factory.

Therefore, till the high court decided on the present petition, the management should be permitted to open the administrative wing for the limited purpose of taking care and maintenance of the factory since its condition was in a bad shape, the counsel said.

The management will give an undertaking that no production work would be taken up, he added.

It was also argued on behalf of Sterlite by two other senior counsels that if the company loses its case, it may shift the unit elsewhere but till then the property should be protected.

They submitted a running factory cannot be closed unless there was a finding that it causes pollution.

Countering the submissions, senior counsel C S Vaidyanathan for TNPCB submitted that the state government officials had all the knowledge and expertise to take care of maintenance and that the state would be responsible for any problems.

Counsels for impleading petitioners claimed that the factory caused air and water pollution affecting 10,000 people in the locality and their lives were at stake. 
 
 
 
&nbsp;

The Madras High Court Friday declined to grant any interim relief to Vedanta group's Sterlite for carrying out maintenance work at its closed copper smelter unit in Tuticorin in Tamil Nadu.

The Madras High Court Friday declined to grant any interim relief to Vedanta group's Sterlite for carrying out maintenance work at its closed copper smelter unit in Tuticorin in Tamil Nadu. Hearing a petition by the company challenging the closure order, a division bench of justices M Sathyanarayanan and M Nirmal Kumar, however, cautioned the state government, under whose control the unit was now, it would be held responsible in the event of any mishap or environmental damage. It recorded an undertaking given by Advocate General Vijay Narayan, who appeared for the government, that the state would take all such responsibility and posted the matter to March 27 for further hearing. The bench also directed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) to file its reply by then. Sterlite in its petition, filed in line with the Supreme Court's recent suggestion, has challenged the May 23, 2018 orders of TNPCB refusing renewal of consent to the plant as well as permanent closure, terming them as wholly illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires. The state government ordered the permanent closure in the wake of violent protests against Sterlite that led to the killing of 13 people in police firing on May 22 on a huge crowd in Tuticorin. The locals were protesting against environment pollution being allegedly caused by the factory. The apex court on February 18 had set aside the order of the National Green Tribunal allowing opening of the copper unit but gave the liberty to the company to approach the high court against the closure order. A bench of justices R F Nariman and Navin Sinha had said if such a petition is filed by the company, it can seek an interim relief considering the fact that their plant at Tuticorin has been shut down since April 9, 2018. Accordingly, the company moved the high court Wednesday. When the petition came up for hearing, senior counsel Aryama Sundaram, who appeared for Sterlite, contended that there had been a motivated political campaign against the company from its inception in 1996. The factory had been functioning with consent orders, including permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forest for expansion, he submitted. In view of the company securing the nod for expansion, the protests were held, leading to violence and police firing. This was the reason for the closure of the factory, he said. The counsel said the TNPCB had refused to renew the consent citing what he called five untenable reasons. This was followed by another four orders and six other consequential orders before the final closure of the factory. Sundaram said the unit was now under the control of the District Collector, who has no technical know-how to maintain the factory. Therefore, till the high court decided on the present petition, the management should be permitted to open the administrative wing for the limited purpose of taking care and maintenance of the factory since its condition was in a bad shape, the counsel said. The management will give an undertaking that no production work would be taken up, he added. It was also argued on behalf of Sterlite by two other senior counsels that if the company loses its case, it may shift the unit elsewhere but till then the property should be protected. They submitted a running factory cannot be closed unless there was a finding that it causes pollution. Countering the submissions, senior counsel C S Vaidyanathan for TNPCB submitted that the state government officials had all the knowledge and expertise to take care of maintenance and that the state would be responsible for any problems. Counsels for impleading petitioners claimed that the factory caused air and water pollution affecting 10,000 people in the locality and their lives were at stake.

Madras High Court declines interim relief to Sterlite

The Madras High Court here has asked the National Highways Authority of India why toll collection licence should not be cancelled if stretches of roads, coming under the jurisdiction of a toll gate, were not maintained&nbsp;Properly.

Justices N Kirubakaran and S S Sundar of the Madurai bench were hearing a PIL Thursday seeking to cancel the licence of a toll plaza at Eliapathy because the highway stretch between Aruppukottai and Madurai in the Madurai-Tuticorin sector had not been maintained and the road was full of potholes leading to accidents since 2011.

The responsibility for the maintenance of the road had been given to a private contractor, who did not maintain the road, the petitioner submitted.

In his plea, Mahalingam wanted the licence of the toll plaza to be suspended first and then cancelled.

Though several complaints were sent to the concessionaire, Madhucon, no action was taken, he submitted and sought the court's intervention to cancel the licence.

The petitioner also alleged that goondas were engaged in toll collection and said the highways authority was sleeping over his complaint.

The High Court had in December last year ordered a 30 per cent exemption from toll till the roads were repaired, he submitted.

The petitioner contended that even after the court order no action had been taken to repair the road.

The bench pointed out the lapse on the part of the concessionaire and asked why toll collection licence should not be cancelled.

The bench further said several similar cases were pending before the court and posted the petition for hearing on March 28. &nbsp;

The Madras High Court here has asked the National Highways Authority of India why toll collection licence should not be cancelled if stretches of roads, coming under the jurisdiction of a toll gate, were not maintained Properly.

The Madras High Court here has asked the National Highways Authority of India why toll collection licence should not be cancelled if stretches of roads, coming under the jurisdiction of a toll gate, were not maintained Properly. Justices N Kirubakaran and S S Sundar of the Madurai bench were hearing a PIL Thursday seeking to cancel the licence of a toll plaza at Eliapathy because the highway stretch between Aruppukottai and Madurai in the Madurai-Tuticorin sector had not been maintained and the road was full of potholes leading to accidents since 2011. The responsibility for the maintenance of the road had been given to a private contractor, who did not maintain the road, the petitioner submitted. In his plea, Mahalingam wanted the licence of the toll plaza to be suspended first and then cancelled. Though several complaints were sent to the concessionaire, Madhucon, no action was taken, he submitted and sought the court's intervention to cancel the licence. The petitioner also alleged that goondas were engaged in toll collection and said the highways authority was sleeping over his complaint. The High Court had in December last year ordered a 30 per cent exemption from toll till the roads were repaired, he submitted. The petitioner contended that even after the court order no action had been taken to repair the road. The bench pointed out the lapse on the part of the concessionaire and asked why toll collection licence should not be cancelled. The bench further said several similar cases were pending before the court and posted the petition for hearing on March 28.

Why not cancel toll collection licence if road stretches are not maintained properly, asks HC

The Madras High Court has stayed proceedings in a criminal defamation case against DMK president M K Stalin over certain remarks made by him against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K Palaniswami in September.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh issued the interim order on Thursday on a petition by Stalin against the proceedings arising out of a complaint filed against him under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC over his alleged public speech in Salem on September 18 criticising the chief minister.

The case was initially filed in a court in Salem and later transferred to the special court for cases against MPs and MLAs in Chennai.

Stalin submitted that the trial court had failed to note that the allegations made against the chief minister did not amount to defamation.

He alleged that the complaint had been filed with malicious and political motive to harass him.

Making a statement against Palaniswami in his individual capacity cannot be said to be damaging the reputation of the office of the chief minister, the DMK chief submitted.

The public prosecutor opposed the plea and argued that baseless and unsubstantiated allegations made by the petitioner against the chief minister constituted criminal defamation and he was liable to be prosecuted.

<img src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif" />

The Madras High Court has stayed proceedings in a criminal defamation case against DMK president M K Stalin over certain remarks made by him against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K Palaniswami in September.

The Madras High Court has stayed proceedings in a criminal defamation case against DMK president M K Stalin over certain remarks made by him against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K Palaniswami in September. Justice N Anand Venkatesh issued the interim order on Thursday on a petition by Stalin against the proceedings arising out of a complaint filed against him under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC over his alleged public speech in Salem on September 18 criticising the chief minister. The case was initially filed in a court in Salem and later transferred to the special court for cases against MPs and MLAs in Chennai. Stalin submitted that the trial court had failed to note that the allegations made against the chief minister did not amount to defamation. He alleged that the complaint had been filed with malicious and political motive to harass him. Making a statement against Palaniswami in his individual capacity cannot be said to be damaging the reputation of the office of the chief minister, the DMK chief submitted. The public prosecutor opposed the plea and argued that baseless and unsubstantiated allegations made by the petitioner against the chief minister constituted criminal defamation and he was liable to be prosecuted.

Madras High Court stays proceedings in defamation case against DMK chief Stalin

The Madras High Court on Friday quashed an order passed by the Income Tax department sanctioning criminal prosecution against the family members of former Union minister P Chidambaram in a black money case.

When the petitions by Chidambaram's wife Nalini, his son Karti and daughter-in-law Srinidhi came up, a division bench of justices S Manikumar and Subramania Prasad said no case was made out and quashed the criminal prosecution.

The writ petitions were filed challenging the criminal prosecution initiated by the I-T Department against them.

On October 12, the high court had extended the interim order dispensing with the appearance of Chidambaram's family members before a special court here till Friday, in the case of 'non-disclosure' of foreign assets filed against them by the I-T Department.

The issue pertains to alleged non-disclosure of overseas assets and bank accounts held by the three.

According to the I-T Department, the three had failed to disclose a property they jointly own in Cambridge in the UK, worth Rs 5.37 crore, which amounted to an offence under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act.

The department has also alleged that Karti Chidambaram had failed to disclose an overseas bank account he holds with Metro Bank in the UK and investments he had made in Nano Holdings LLC, USA.

He had also "failed" to disclose investments made by Chess Global Advisory, a company co-owned by him, which amounts to an offence under the Black Money Act, the department said in its complaint filed in the special court in May.

Assailing the prosecution, the three had approached the high court. As a single judge bench refused any relief, they moved an appeal. 
On June 27, the first bench headed by then Chief Justice Indira Banerjee reserved its order on the appeal.

However, as Justice Banerjee was later elevated to the Supreme Court, orders could not be pronounced.

The appeal was then referred to the bench headed by Justice Manikumar for fresh hearing.

During the hearing by Justice Banerjee, counsel for the appellants had contended that prima facie no offence can be made out against them under the Black Money Act, which deals with undisclosed income raised from foreign assets.&nbsp;

The Madras High Court on Friday quashed an order passed by the Income Tax department sanctioning criminal prosecution against the family members of former Union minister P Chidambaram in a black money case.

The Madras High Court on Friday quashed an order passed by the Income Tax department sanctioning criminal prosecution against the family members of former Union minister P Chidambaram in a black money case. When the petitions by Chidambaram's wife Nalini, his son Karti and daughter-in-law Srinidhi came up, a division bench of justices S Manikumar and Subramania Prasad said no case was made out and quashed the criminal prosecution. The writ petitions were filed challenging the criminal prosecution initiated by the I-T Department against them. On October 12, the high court had extended the interim order dispensing with the appearance of Chidambaram's family members before a special court here till Friday, in the case of 'non-disclosure' of foreign assets filed against them by the I-T Department. The issue pertains to alleged non-disclosure of overseas assets and bank accounts held by the three. According to the I-T Department, the three had failed to disclose a property they jointly own in Cambridge in the UK, worth Rs 5.37 crore, which amounted to an offence under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. The department has also alleged that Karti Chidambaram had failed to disclose an overseas bank account he holds with Metro Bank in the UK and investments he had made in Nano Holdings LLC, USA. He had also "failed" to disclose investments made by Chess Global Advisory, a company co-owned by him, which amounts to an offence under the Black Money Act, the department said in its complaint filed in the special court in May. Assailing the prosecution, the three had approached the high court. As a single judge bench refused any relief, they moved an appeal. On June 27, the first bench headed by then Chief Justice Indira Banerjee reserved its order on the appeal. However, as Justice Banerjee was later elevated to the Supreme Court, orders could not be pronounced. The appeal was then referred to the bench headed by Justice Manikumar for fresh hearing. During the hearing by Justice Banerjee, counsel for the appellants had contended that prima facie no offence can be made out against them under the Black Money Act, which deals with undisclosed income raised from foreign assets.

Madras HC quashes I-T Dept's criminal prosecution against Chidambaram's family 

Edappadi K Palaniswami government in Tamil Nadu has got a temporary breather of sorts with Justice M Sathyanarayanan, the third judge of Madras High Court upholding validity of Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker P Dhanapal’s September 18, 2017 order disqualifying 18 AIADMK MLAs, owing allegiance to TTV Dhinakaran, for submitting a memorandum seeking change of chief minister to the then Governor.

With the upholding of the disqualification of the 18 MLAs, the ruling AIADMK government need not worry about the floor test in the Assembly. As on date, the AIADMK enjoys the support of 112 MLAs including Speaker. The total strength of the House has come down to 214 members from 234 following the disqualification of 18 MLAs and death of two legislators – M Karunanidhi (Tiruvarur) and AK Bose of AIADMK (Thiruparankundran).

In the House of 214, the Palaniswami government required a simple majority of 107 members to survive any floor test. Speaker has also issued a notice to the four sitting AIADMK MLAs – E Rathinasabapathy, VT Kalaiselvan, A Prabhu and S Karunas joining the TTV Dhinakaran camp. Two others MLAs U Thaiyarasu and Thamimun Ansari who won the election in the AIADMK symbol have not clearly spelt out their allegiance.

Although the AIADMK government has got a temporary relief in the guise of the court verdict, the future course of action by the disqualified MLAs would decide the stability of the government. In the case the disqualified legislators decided to face the bypoll, the AIADMK’s dual leadership of Palaniswami and deputy chief minister O Panneerselvam would be put to test with the election results deciding the future as well.

One of the disqualified MLA Thanga Tamil Selvan who is camping with other 16 disqualified legislators in Courtallam resort, hinted that they may not go for an appeal and instead face the bypolls. Asked about Thanga Thamil Selvan's view that the disqualified MLAs would not challenge the HC verdict, TTV Dhinakaran said, "It is his views. We will take a final decision on whether to challenge the verdict or face the by-election in a day or two."

"We did not expect this verdict. We will consult the disqualified MLAs on further course of action. If they agree to go for an appeal, we will do so or otherwise we will decide as per the views of the disqualified MLAs,” he said, adding that he would be meeting the disqualified MLAs at Courtallam within a day or two to decide about the next move.

After holding consultation with senior party leaders at the party headquarters, AIADMK co-coordinator and chief minister Palaniswami said that his party is already prepared to face the bypolls anytime. He said that as and when the election commission holds by-elections to the 18 assembly seats, his party would win all the seats.

DMK President MK Stalin who chaired the meeting of his parties district secretaries here asked the Election Commission of India to hold by-elections to all the 20 Assembly seats which are remaining vacant at the earliest. “We are not bothered about the outcome of the court verdict as it is a feud between two camps of AIADMK. After the verdict, 18 seats did not have people’s representatives like in the case of two other seats - Tiruvarur and Thiruparankundran. I appeal to the Election Commission to hold by-elections to all the 20 seats immediately as people eager to vote for the DMK,” he told reporters at DMK headquarters Anna Arivalayam.

On June 14, the first bench of the Madras HC passed a split verdict, with the then Chief Justice, Justice Indira Banerjee, upholding the decision of the assembly speaker in disqualifying the MLAs under the anti-defection law while the second judge, Justice M Sundar, differed and set aside the disqualification order.

Subsequently, the senior most judge of the high court, Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh, appointed Justice S Vimala as the third judge to decide the case. Aggrieved over the choice of judge, one of the disqualified legislators approached the Supreme Court seeking to transfer the case to itself. On June 27, a vacation bench of the Supreme Court nominated Justice Sathyanarayanan as the third judge.

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/report-why-madras-high-court-s-verdict-means-little-cheer-for-eps-ops-camp-2679162">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Edappadi K Palaniswami government in Tamil Nadu has got a temporary breather of sorts with Justice M Sathyanarayanan, the third judge of Madras High Court upholding validity of Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker P Dhanapal’s September 18, 2017 order disqualifying 18 AIADMK MLAs, owing allegiance to TTV Dhinakaran, for submitting a memorandum seeking change of chief minister to the then Governor.

Edappadi K Palaniswami government in Tamil Nadu has got a temporary breather of sorts with Justice M Sathyanarayanan, the third judge of Madras High Court upholding validity of Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker P Dhanapal’s September 18, 2017 order disqualifying 18 AIADMK MLAs, owing allegiance to TTV Dhinakaran, for submitting a memorandum seeking change of chief minister to the then Governor. With the upholding of the disqualification of the 18 MLAs, the ruling AIADMK government need not worry about the floor test in the Assembly. As on date, the AIADMK enjoys the support of 112 MLAs including Speaker. The total strength of the House has come down to 214 members from 234 following the disqualification of 18 MLAs and death of two legislators – M Karunanidhi (Tiruvarur) and AK Bose of AIADMK (Thiruparankundran). In the House of 214, the Palaniswami government required a simple majority of 107 members to survive any floor test. Speaker has also issued a notice to the four sitting AIADMK MLAs – E Rathinasabapathy, VT Kalaiselvan, A Prabhu and S Karunas joining the TTV Dhinakaran camp. Two others MLAs U Thaiyarasu and Thamimun Ansari who won the election in the AIADMK symbol have not clearly spelt out their allegiance. Although the AIADMK government has got a temporary relief in the guise of the court verdict, the future course of action by the disqualified MLAs would decide the stability of the government. In the case the disqualified legislators decided to face the bypoll, the AIADMK’s dual leadership of Palaniswami and deputy chief minister O Panneerselvam would be put to test with the election results deciding the future as well. One of the disqualified MLA Thanga Tamil Selvan who is camping with other 16 disqualified legislators in Courtallam resort, hinted that they may not go for an appeal and instead face the bypolls. Asked about Thanga Thamil Selvan's view that the disqualified MLAs would not challenge the HC verdict, TTV Dhinakaran said, "It is his views. We will take a final decision on whether to challenge the verdict or face the by-election in a day or two." "We did not expect this verdict. We will consult the disqualified MLAs on further course of action. If they agree to go for an appeal, we will do so or otherwise we will decide as per the views of the disqualified MLAs,” he said, adding that he would be meeting the disqualified MLAs at Courtallam within a day or two to decide about the next move. After holding consultation with senior party leaders at the party headquarters, AIADMK co-coordinator and chief minister Palaniswami said that his party is already prepared to face the bypolls anytime. He said that as and when the election commission holds by-elections to the 18 assembly seats, his party would win all the seats. DMK President MK Stalin who chaired the meeting of his parties district secretaries here asked the Election Commission of India to hold by-elections to all the 20 Assembly seats which are remaining vacant at the earliest. “We are not bothered about the outcome of the court verdict as it is a feud between two camps of AIADMK. After the verdict, 18 seats did not have people’s representatives like in the case of two other seats - Tiruvarur and Thiruparankundran. I appeal to the Election Commission to hold by-elections to all the 20 seats immediately as people eager to vote for the DMK,” he told reporters at DMK headquarters Anna Arivalayam. On June 14, the first bench of the Madras HC passed a split verdict, with the then Chief Justice, Justice Indira Banerjee, upholding the decision of the assembly speaker in disqualifying the MLAs under the anti-defection law while the second judge, Justice M Sundar, differed and set aside the disqualification order. Subsequently, the senior most judge of the high court, Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh, appointed Justice S Vimala as the third judge to decide the case. Aggrieved over the choice of judge, one of the disqualified legislators approached the Supreme Court seeking to transfer the case to itself. On June 27, a vacation bench of the Supreme Court nominated Justice Sathyanarayanan as the third judge. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Why Madras high court's verdict means little cheer for EPS-OPS camp

The Madras High Court Friday dismissed a petition of a woman, who claimed that she was the biological daughter of late chief minister Jayalalithaa, stating that she "miserably failed in her endeavour to establish the same".

Justice S Vaidyanathan, who dismissed the petition, said that since the woman could not establish that she was the biological daughter, there was no question of the court allowing her to perform the last rites for Jayalalitha as per Vaishnavite rituals, as requested.

The judge dismissed the petition of S Amrutha (38) of Bengaluru, her relatives L S Lalitha and Ranjani Ravindranath.

Concurring with the submission of Advocate General Vijay Narayan that Amrutha was trying to defame late Jayalalithaa, the judge said that according to the Puranas, even deceased people have got the right to privacy and their souls should not be disturbed, "as they have an immortal life after their death".

"In this case, though we are able to see a lot of twists and turns, creating moments of excitement and anxiousness that alone cannot be sufficient to arrive at a definite conclusion in the absence of any supporting documents thereof," he said.

The judge said that it was saddening to note that the death of Jayalalithaa was still a mystery, "though her photos were then and there published by Apollo Hospitals, showing as if she was taking idly, doing physical exercise, cracking jokes, conducting meetings with the officials of the state government, thereby portraying the Hospitals and others, who have given an untrue story, as villains."

The judge while referring to the present case, said Amrutha had not produced any photograph to establish that she had stayed with Jayalalithaa.

Her averment that she made several phone calls to Jayalalithaa cannot be a good ground for the court to accept her contention, she said.

Though she had averred that Jayalalithaa used to hug her whenever she saw her, it would only be considered as spoken in the air, merely showing her delusive quality.

The court cannot take the same into account for the purpose of granting relief, the judge said.

On Amrutha's prayer to conduct a DNA test, the judge said it can be&nbsp;done only if there is&nbsp;strong grounds, which was not established by producing appropriate documentary evidence.

Her averment that she sent representations to all public authorities, including Supreme Court judges, seeking to cremate Jayalalithaa's mortal remains as per rites, rituals and customs of Vaishnava Iyengar Brahmin community does not sound good and there is no need for the Judges to look into such representation concerning the private affairs of a person, the judge said.

Though she had contended that her blood samples and Deepa Jayakumar, Jayalalithaa's niece, have to be sent for DNA matching to ascertain her maternity, there was not an iota of evidence, more particularly, strong and cogent reasons to substantiate her claim, the judge said.

"In the absence of substantial evidence,this court cannot grant the relief sought by her. &nbsp; &nbsp;If the said relief is granted, it will not only open a Pandora's box, but also the coffin of Jayalalithaa. The court is not inclined to do so," the judge said.

On Amrutha's claim that she was born to Jayalalithaa on August 14, 1980 at her residence, the judge said a photograph produced by the AG at a public function in 1980 showed no sign of Jayalalithaa in an advanced stage of pregnancy.

If Amrutha's averment were true, then Jayalalithaa would not have actively participated in the Filmfare Award function in Chennai on July 6 1980, he said.

Referring to Nov 1, 1971 will executed by Sandya, the mother of Jayalalithaa, the judge said that a reading of the will would make it very clear that she had only two children, Jayakumar and Jayalalithaa.

There was no mention about Amrutha's foster mother, late Shylaja, in the will, the judge said.

Also, it was to be noted that Amrutha had not filed any case before any court for conduct of a paternity test, the judge said and dismissed the petition.

The Madras High Court Friday dismissed a petition of a woman, who claimed that she was the biological daughter of late chief minister Jayalalithaa, stating that she "miserably failed in her endeavour to establish the same".

The Madras High Court Friday dismissed a petition of a woman, who claimed that she was the biological daughter of late chief minister Jayalalithaa, stating that she "miserably failed in her endeavour to establish the same". Justice S Vaidyanathan, who dismissed the petition, said that since the woman could not establish that she was the biological daughter, there was no question of the court allowing her to perform the last rites for Jayalalitha as per Vaishnavite rituals, as requested. The judge dismissed the petition of S Amrutha (38) of Bengaluru, her relatives L S Lalitha and Ranjani Ravindranath. Concurring with the submission of Advocate General Vijay Narayan that Amrutha was trying to defame late Jayalalithaa, the judge said that according to the Puranas, even deceased people have got the right to privacy and their souls should not be disturbed, "as they have an immortal life after their death". "In this case, though we are able to see a lot of twists and turns, creating moments of excitement and anxiousness that alone cannot be sufficient to arrive at a definite conclusion in the absence of any supporting documents thereof," he said. The judge said that it was saddening to note that the death of Jayalalithaa was still a mystery, "though her photos were then and there published by Apollo Hospitals, showing as if she was taking idly, doing physical exercise, cracking jokes, conducting meetings with the officials of the state government, thereby portraying the Hospitals and others, who have given an untrue story, as villains." The judge while referring to the present case, said Amrutha had not produced any photograph to establish that she had stayed with Jayalalithaa. Her averment that she made several phone calls to Jayalalithaa cannot be a good ground for the court to accept her contention, she said. Though she had averred that Jayalalithaa used to hug her whenever she saw her, it would only be considered as spoken in the air, merely showing her delusive quality. The court cannot take the same into account for the purpose of granting relief, the judge said. On Amrutha's prayer to conduct a DNA test, the judge said it can be done only if there is strong grounds, which was not established by producing appropriate documentary evidence. Her averment that she sent representations to all public authorities, including Supreme Court judges, seeking to cremate Jayalalithaa's mortal remains as per rites, rituals and customs of Vaishnava Iyengar Brahmin community does not sound good and there is no need for the Judges to look into such representation concerning the private affairs of a person, the judge said. Though she had contended that her blood samples and Deepa Jayakumar, Jayalalithaa's niece, have to be sent for DNA matching to ascertain her maternity, there was not an iota of evidence, more particularly, strong and cogent reasons to substantiate her claim, the judge said. "In the absence of substantial evidence,this court cannot grant the relief sought by her. If the said relief is granted, it will not only open a Pandora's box, but also the coffin of Jayalalithaa. The court is not inclined to do so," the judge said. On Amrutha's claim that she was born to Jayalalithaa on August 14, 1980 at her residence, the judge said a photograph produced by the AG at a public function in 1980 showed no sign of Jayalalithaa in an advanced stage of pregnancy. If Amrutha's averment were true, then Jayalalithaa would not have actively participated in the Filmfare Award function in Chennai on July 6 1980, he said. Referring to Nov 1, 1971 will executed by Sandya, the mother of Jayalalithaa, the judge said that a reading of the will would make it very clear that she had only two children, Jayakumar and Jayalalithaa. There was no mention about Amrutha's foster mother, late Shylaja, in the will, the judge said. Also, it was to be noted that Amrutha had not filed any case before any court for conduct of a paternity test, the judge said and dismissed the petition.

Madras HC dismisses woman's claim that she is Jayalaliathaa's daughter

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Tuesday has moved the Madras High Court challenging a trial court order which discharged&nbsp;Kalanithi Maran,&nbsp;Dayanidhi Maran&nbsp;and seven others in the&nbsp;BSNL&nbsp;illegal telephone exchange case.

During the period between 2004 and 2007,&nbsp;Dayanidhi Maran&nbsp;had been accused of misusing his power and allegedly providing the wrong cell phone connections of Chennai&nbsp;BSNL&nbsp;to Sun Telecom, owned by his brother&nbsp;Kalanithi Maran.

The CBI alleged that the government has lost Rs 1.78 crore in revenue to&nbsp;Sun TV.

The CBI in 2013 filed a petition in a special court in this case against former general manager of Chennai&nbsp;BSNL&nbsp;(K.B. Brahmanathan), former Deputy General Manager of the company, Velusamy, former Union Minister&nbsp;Dayanidhi Maran, his personal secretary Gauthamman, Sun Television's Chief Technology Officer Kannan, Electrician Ravi,&nbsp;Sun TV President&nbsp;Kalanithi Maran.

Earlier on March 14 Chennai CBI judge Natarajan questioned the case and released the case.

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the CBI against this order, since the petition stated that the trial court did not formally examine the documents in regard to this case.

The trial court dismissed all of the cases filed by the petition seeking the release of four persons.

Former telecom minister&nbsp;Dayanidhi Maran&nbsp;and his brother&nbsp;Kalanithi Maran&nbsp;were discharged on March 14 by a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court.

The inquiry should be ordered to cancel the order issued by the trial court and order the seven to face the trial.

The judge has been ordered to reply by 20th of this month.

The case pertains to alleged illegal setting up of the telephone exchange at&nbsp;Dayanidhi Maran's residence during his tenure as the Union Telecom Minister from 2004 to 2007. The 764 high-speed data lines of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) were then allegedly used for doing business transactions involving Sun Network, a channel run by his brother&nbsp;Kalanithi Maran. 
&nbsp;

The CBI alleged that the government has lost Rs 1.78 crore in revenue to Sun TV

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Tuesday has moved the Madras High Court challenging a trial court order which discharged Kalanithi Maran, Dayanidhi Maran and seven others in the BSNL illegal telephone exchange case. During the period between 2004 and 2007, Dayanidhi Maran had been accused of misusing his power and allegedly providing the wrong cell phone connections of Chennai BSNL to Sun Telecom, owned by his brother Kalanithi Maran. The CBI alleged that the government has lost Rs 1.78 crore in revenue to Sun TV. The CBI in 2013 filed a petition in a special court in this case against former general manager of Chennai BSNL (K.B. Brahmanathan), former Deputy General Manager of the company, Velusamy, former Union Minister Dayanidhi Maran, his personal secretary Gauthamman, Sun Television's Chief Technology Officer Kannan, Electrician Ravi, Sun TV President Kalanithi Maran. Earlier on March 14 Chennai CBI judge Natarajan questioned the case and released the case. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the CBI against this order, since the petition stated that the trial court did not formally examine the documents in regard to this case. The trial court dismissed all of the cases filed by the petition seeking the release of four persons. Former telecom minister Dayanidhi Maran and his brother Kalanithi Maran were discharged on March 14 by a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court. The inquiry should be ordered to cancel the order issued by the trial court and order the seven to face the trial. The judge has been ordered to reply by 20th of this month. The case pertains to alleged illegal setting up of the telephone exchange at Dayanidhi Maran's residence during his tenure as the Union Telecom Minister from 2004 to 2007. The 764 high-speed data lines of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) were then allegedly used for doing business transactions involving Sun Network, a channel run by his brother Kalanithi Maran.

BSNL case: CBI challenges discharge of Maran brothers

As the transport workers&#39; unions strike in Tamil Nadu entered the eighth day today, auto drivers have been called in to drive buses in Coimbatore. The striking workers are demanding wage hike among other things.&nbsp;

Transport strike disrupted normal life across the state for eight days in a row as the workers refused to join works even after the Madras high court on Friday directed them to withdraw their stir or face action.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Transport workers&#39; unions in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TamilNadu?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TamilNadu</a> enters eighth day, they are demanding wage hike among other things. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Visuals?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Visuals</a> from Rameswaram. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BusStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BusStrike</a> <a href="https://t.co/LgpFHqnj4a">pic.twitter.com/LgpFHqnj4a</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/951293003791941632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The striking workers&#39; unions on Wednesday night decided to continue with their agitation as the government is yet to invite them to fresh wage negotiations.

A decision in this regard was taken after the union leaders went on a huddle in the evening to decide on their future course of action.

A lawyer representing the workers&#39; unions told the high court yesterday in view of upcoming Pongal and keeping public interest&nbsp;in mind, his clients were willing to resume works provided the government gives commitment to hold talks with them on their demand for a higher wage.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Transport workers&#39; unions strike in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TamilNadu?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TamilNadu</a> enters eighth day, they are demanding wage hike among other things. Auto drivers called to drive buses in Coimbatore. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BusStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BusStrike</a> <a href="https://t.co/qNgfBvM50h">pic.twitter.com/qNgfBvM50h</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/951327082427985920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The court, which came down heavily on the striking workers for holding the people to ransom, asked the unions to listen to their conscience while taking a call on the issue.

Justice M Govindaraj and Justice S Manikumar posted the matter for further hearing today and asked the unions to inform their decision on withdrawal of the strike by then. 
&nbsp;

The striking workers' unions on Wednesday night decided to continue with their agitation as the government is yet to invite them to fresh wage negotiations.

As the transport workers' unions strike in Tamil Nadu entered the eighth day today, auto drivers have been called in to drive buses in Coimbatore. The striking workers are demanding wage hike among other things. Transport strike disrupted normal life across the state for eight days in a row as the workers refused to join works even after the Madras high court on Friday directed them to withdraw their stir or face action. Transport workers' unions in #TamilNadu enters eighth day, they are demanding wage hike among other things. #Visuals from Rameswaram. #BusStrike pic.twitter.com/LgpFHqnj4a — ANI (@ANI) January 11, 2018 × The striking workers' unions on Wednesday night decided to continue with their agitation as the government is yet to invite them to fresh wage negotiations. A decision in this regard was taken after the union leaders went on a huddle in the evening to decide on their future course of action. A lawyer representing the workers' unions told the high court yesterday in view of upcoming Pongal and keeping public interest in mind, his clients were willing to resume works provided the government gives commitment to hold talks with them on their demand for a higher wage. Transport workers' unions strike in #TamilNadu enters eighth day, they are demanding wage hike among other things. Auto drivers called to drive buses in Coimbatore. #BusStrike pic.twitter.com/qNgfBvM50h — ANI (@ANI) January 11, 2018 × The court, which came down heavily on the striking workers for holding the people to ransom, asked the unions to listen to their conscience while taking a call on the issue. Justice M Govindaraj and Justice S Manikumar posted the matter for further hearing today and asked the unions to inform their decision on withdrawal of the strike by then.

As transport workers' strike enters 8th day, auto drivers called in to drive buses

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami on Saturday held Sasikala and members of her family responsible for the Income Tax raids at Poes Garden. &nbsp;

Speaking to reporters in Madurai, the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister said Sasikala and her family members have brought &#39;bad name to the party&#39;.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
It is the wrong doing of a family (Sasikala) which has brought bad name for the party and that is why IT raids are happening.: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswami in Madurai <a href="https://t.co/vfRY9TFCAe">pic.twitter.com/vfRY9TFCAe</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/931910113585020928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&quot;During I-T raids in Poes Garden, Amma&#39;s room was not searched. There is no connection between the IT raids in Poes Garden &amp; state government. Raids are conducted by the IT dept which is under Centre,&quot; the reports said quoting Palaniswami.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
During IT raids in Poes Garden, Amma&#39;s room was not searched. There is no connection between the IT raids in Poes Garden &amp; state govt. Raids are conducted by the IT dept which is under Centre.: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswami in Madurai <a href="https://t.co/Kt4sqHq0te">pic.twitter.com/Kt4sqHq0te</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/931910657196228608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Responding to TTV Dhinakaran&#39;s charge that he did not express his opposition to the IT raids, the CM asked&nbsp;&quot;Who is TTV Dhinakaran? He was not in the party for past 10 yrs, only after Amma&#39;s death, he has to come to the fore. He did not make me CM. It is my step by step contribution to the party that I became CM, all MLAs elected me,&quot; he added.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
Who is TTV Dhinakaran? He was not in party for past 10 yrs, only after Amma&#39;s death he has to come to the fore. He did not make me CM. It is my step by step contribution to the party that I became CM, all MLAs elected me.: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswami in Madurai <a href="https://t.co/uB3wpHWvDU">pic.twitter.com/uB3wpHWvDU</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/931911306268966912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

A few days after conducting raids for almost a week at different&nbsp;places owned by&nbsp;jailed AIADMK general secretary VK Sasikala and her relatives, the IT department officials arrived at former Tamil Nadu CM J Jayalalithaa&#39;s Poes Garden house in Chennai and conducted a search. During the search, the Income Tax officials said to have seized two pen drives and two laptops.&nbsp;

The officials conducted a thorough search in the two rooms used by Sasikala and a room used by her personal secretary S Poongundran.&nbsp;

The Madras High Court on Friday upheld the CBI court order convicting son-in-law and daughter of jailed AIADMK leader VK Sasikala&#39;s sister in a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/it-raid-on-sasikala-and-kins-reveals-rs-1430-crore-unaccounted-for-investments-24174">Rs.1400 crore</a>&nbsp;disproportionate assets (DA) case registered two decades ago.

The Madras High Court on Friday upheld a CBI court order convicting son-in-law and daughter of jailed AIADMK leader VK Sasikala's sister in a Rs.1400 crore disproportionate assets (DA) case registered two decades ago.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami on Saturday held Sasikala and members of her family responsible for the Income Tax raids at Poes Garden. Speaking to reporters in Madurai, the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister said Sasikala and her family members have brought 'bad name to the party'. It is the wrong doing of a family (Sasikala) which has brought bad name for the party and that is why IT raids are happening.: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswami in Madurai pic.twitter.com/vfRY9TFCAe — ANI (@ANI) November 18, 2017 × "During I-T raids in Poes Garden, Amma's room was not searched. There is no connection between the IT raids in Poes Garden & state government. Raids are conducted by the IT dept which is under Centre," the reports said quoting Palaniswami. During IT raids in Poes Garden, Amma's room was not searched. There is no connection between the IT raids in Poes Garden & state govt. Raids are conducted by the IT dept which is under Centre.: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswami in Madurai pic.twitter.com/Kt4sqHq0te — ANI (@ANI) November 18, 2017 × Responding to TTV Dhinakaran's charge that he did not express his opposition to the IT raids, the CM asked "Who is TTV Dhinakaran? He was not in the party for past 10 yrs, only after Amma's death, he has to come to the fore. He did not make me CM. It is my step by step contribution to the party that I became CM, all MLAs elected me," he added. Who is TTV Dhinakaran? He was not in party for past 10 yrs, only after Amma's death he has to come to the fore. He did not make me CM. It is my step by step contribution to the party that I became CM, all MLAs elected me.: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswami in Madurai pic.twitter.com/uB3wpHWvDU — ANI (@ANI) November 18, 2017 × A few days after conducting raids for almost a week at different places owned by jailed AIADMK general secretary VK Sasikala and her relatives, the IT department officials arrived at former Tamil Nadu CM J Jayalalithaa's Poes Garden house in Chennai and conducted a search. During the search, the Income Tax officials said to have seized two pen drives and two laptops. The officials conducted a thorough search in the two rooms used by Sasikala and a room used by her personal secretary S Poongundran. The Madras High Court on Friday upheld the CBI court order convicting son-in-law and daughter of jailed AIADMK leader VK Sasikala's sister in a Rs.1400 crore disproportionate assets (DA) case registered two decades ago.

Sasikala has brought 'bad name to the party', says Tamil Nadu CM

A research scholar on Tuesday went to Madras High Court with a plea&nbsp;to remove the word &#39;Mahatma&#39; as a prefix from&nbsp;Gandhi&#39;s name, reports said. The court rejected his plea and&nbsp;slapped a fine of&nbsp;Rs 10,000.&nbsp;

The scholar, S Muruganantham, from Jadavpur University in Kolkata, filed his&nbsp;petition as a&nbsp;public interest litigation (PIL) but was rejected by&nbsp;Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar.

According to reports, they stated that this kind of petitions only lead to wastage of time and trapped the courts business.&nbsp;

Muruganantham argued that the act of the government violates Article 14 and 18 of the constitution and further questioned the gravity of adding &#39;Mahatma&#39;&nbsp;before the name of M K Gandhi in Indian currency notes, says&nbsp;reports.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Moreover, the scholar further said that when RBI uses &#39;Mahatma&#39;, it violates the principle of equality which constitutes a basic foundation of the constitution, reports said.&nbsp;&nbsp;

A research scholar asked the Madras HC to direct the Centre to refrain from using the prefix 'Mahatma' before Gandhi?s name on notes.

A research scholar on Tuesday went to Madras High Court with a plea to remove the word 'Mahatma' as a prefix from Gandhi's name, reports said. The court rejected his plea and slapped a fine of Rs 10,000. The scholar, S Muruganantham, from Jadavpur University in Kolkata, filed his petition as a public interest litigation (PIL) but was rejected by Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar. According to reports, they stated that this kind of petitions only lead to wastage of time and trapped the courts business. Muruganantham argued that the act of the government violates Article 14 and 18 of the constitution and further questioned the gravity of adding 'Mahatma' before the name of M K Gandhi in Indian currency notes, says reports. Moreover, the scholar further said that when RBI uses 'Mahatma', it violates the principle of equality which constitutes a basic foundation of the constitution, reports said.

'Waste of time': Court slams man who wanted 'Mahatma' removed from before Gandhi's name

A research scholar on Tuesday went to Madras High Court with the aim to remove the word &#39;Mahatma&#39; as a prefix to Gandhi&#39;s name, got slammed with a cost of Rs.10,000, reports said.&nbsp;

The scholar, S Muruganantham, at Jadavpur University in Kolkata, whose petition was declined as public interest litigation (PIL) by Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar.

According to reports, they stated that this kind of petitions only lead to wastage of time and trapped the courts business.&nbsp;

Muruganantham argued that the act of the government violates Article 14 and 18 of the constitution and further questioned the gravity of adding &#39;Mahatma&#39;&nbsp;before the name of M K Gandhi in Indian currency notes, says&nbsp;reports.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Moreover, the scholar further said that when RBI uses &#39;Mahatma&#39;, it violates the principle of equality which constitutes a basic foundation of the constitution, reports said.&nbsp;&nbsp;

A research scholar on Tuesday went to Madras High Court with the aim to remove the word 'Mahatma' as a prefix to Gandhi's name, got slammed with a cost of Rs.10,000, reports said. The scholar, S Muruganantham, at Jadavpur University in Kolkata, whose petition was declined as public interest litigation (PIL) by Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar. According to reports, they stated that this kind of petitions only lead to wastage of time and trapped the courts business. Muruganantham argued that the act of the government violates Article 14 and 18 of the constitution and further questioned the gravity of adding 'Mahatma' before the name of M K Gandhi in Indian currency notes, says reports. Moreover, the scholar further said that when RBI uses 'Mahatma', it violates the principle of equality which constitutes a basic foundation of the constitution, reports said.

'Waste of time': Court slams man who wanted Mahatma removed before Gandhi's name

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

Initiate disciplinary action against erring poll officials: High Court to Election Commission

Madras High Court lifts ban on TikTok video app

If Madras High Court doesn't decide by April 24, ban on TikTok will be lifted: Supreme Court

Madras High Court upholds Election Commission's decision to cancel Vellore Lok Sabha polls

Supreme Court refuses to stay Madras HC order on TikTok app

Ban will amount to curtailing rights of citizens of India: TikTok to court

Supreme Court to hear on April 15 plea challenging Madras High Court order asking Centre to ban TikTok app

Days before polls, Madras High Court quashes land acquisition proceedings for Chennai-Salem Expressway

Ban Chinese video app TikTok: Madras High Court to government

Supreme Court upholds conviction, life imprisonment of Saravana Bhavan founder in murder case

HC refuses to quash charges against Dayanidhi Maran, others in telephone exchange case

Jayalalithaa death probe panel opposes Apollo Hospital's plea, says 90 per cent work over

Madras High Court declines interim relief to Sterlite

Why not cancel toll collection licence if road stretches are not maintained properly, asks HC

Madras High Court stays proceedings in defamation case against DMK chief Stalin

Madras HC quashes I-T Dept's criminal prosecution against Chidambaram's family

Why Madras high court's verdict means little cheer for EPS-OPS camp

Madras HC dismisses woman's claim that she is Jayalaliathaa's daughter

BSNL case: CBI challenges discharge of Maran brothers

As transport workers' strike enters 8th day, auto drivers called in to drive buses

Sasikala has brought 'bad name to the party', says Tamil Nadu CM

'Waste of time': Court slams man who wanted 'Mahatma' removed from before Gandhi's name

'Waste of time': Court slams man who wanted Mahatma removed before Gandhi's name

'Waste of time': Court slams man who wanted Mahatma removed before Gandhi's name