Read Time: 18 minutes
1. [Rules To Govern Matrimonial Websites] The Madras High Court has asked the central and state governments to take steps to formulate rules to govern matrimonial websites so that women do not fall prey to fraud. Court has sought formulation of guidelines in order to keep a check on suppression of materials facts, as number of such cheating cases is on rise. Court has directed the state government to form a committee so as to frame necessary regulations in this regard, “as day-in and day-out, criminal cases are facing up after commission of cheating as defined under Section 415 of IPC (Cheating)”. Referring to the penal law, particularly Section 415 of the IPC, the bench said that it was crystal clear that, some kind of preventive measure to protect the prospective person for marriage, needs necessary regulation of such website to ensure material facts are not suppressed or omitted at the initial time of initiation of marriage proposal.
Bench: Justice R M T Teeka Raman
Case Title: Prasanna Chakravarthy v. State
Click here to read more
2. [False Caste Certificates For Jobs] While dealing with a case where false caste certificates had been procured for getting a job, Justice N Mala of the Madras High Court expressed her dismay and observed that this fraud deprives the truly deserving persons of their rights guaranteed under the Constitution. A division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and N Mala was essentially dealing with a writ petition to quash the proceeding initiated by the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee against the petitioner who was a retired Bank of Baroda employee. The petitioner was appointed to the Bank of Baroda in the year 1989, under the reservation category, earmarked for Scheduled Tribes. He had presented a caste certificate issued by Tahsildar, Attur as 'Hindu Kaatunayakam' community belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. However, later on, the caste certificate was found false. The division bench delivered a split verdict in the matter. Whereas Justice Mala held the proceedings initiated against the retired bank employee justified, Justice Banu held that the proceedings of the State Level Committee were of no consequence. She directed the bank to pay all retirement benefits that accrue on the petitioner
Bench: Justice J Nisha Banu and N Mala
Case Title: V.Perumal v. Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee – III and Others
3. [Maternity Benefit for third child] The Madras High Court has recently said that the Maternity Benefit Act cannot be extended to a woman government employee when the fundamental rules prohibit grant of any leave for a third child. The bench observed so while rejecting a plea by a government school lab assistant to grant her maternity leave for the third child. Court highlighted that she was already the biological mother of four children from her two marriages. "When the state policy and fundamental rules restrict the maternity leave for 3rd child, this court is of the view, as the matter of right the petitioner cannot seek maternity leave on the basis of the Maternity Benefit Act", said the bench. "The Rule makes it very clear that such leave can be granted to a married women government servants with less than two surviving children, not exceeding 365 days, which may spread over from the pre-confinement rest to post-confinement recuperation at the option of the government servant," underscored the bench. In her plea, the petitioner said two children were born to her prior to joining government service. Afterwards, twins were born through the second marriage.
Bench: Justice N Sathish Kumar
Case Title: P. Yasotha vs. The Government of Tamilnadu
4. [Payment Of Law Officers' Fee] The Madras High Court on Monday last week allowed a further 30 days time to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu to take necessary steps to comply with the court's directions issued on July 18, 2023, pertaining to the appointment of a Nodal Officer for clearing of the professional fee bills of Law Officers or erstwhile Law officers. The Nodal Officer will also look after the engagement of higher law officers like Advocate General, Additional Advocate General, etc. in specific cases.The order was passed in a matter that was initiated by Thiru. S. Ramasamy, former Additional Advocate General-I of Tamil Nadu against non-clearing of his professional fee bills by the State Government. He had alleged that he appeared for the Government in the capacity of Additional Advocate General-I in the years 2006 – 2011 and accordingly, a bill was claimed by him as an Additional Advocate General-I, but even after a lapse of more than 12 years, the department had not come forward to settle his bills. In the matter, multiple orders were passed by the high court, and on July 18, 2023, court directed the State Government to consider and implement the four suggestions made by the current Advocate General for payment for Law Officers' fees.
Bench: Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu
Case No: W.A.No.1102 of 2012
5. [Minimum Qualification For Appointment To Various Posts In Universities] The Madras High Court recently allowed time till September 4 to the counsel appearing for the University Grants Commission (UGC) before it in a matter pertaining to specific regulations for the method of recruitment, educational qualification, etc. for various posts in Universities, to ascertain and report to the court whether any such regulations have been framed and issued or published by UGC yet. The bench took note of a notification issued by UGC in 2011 whereby suggestions were invited from the stakeholders concerned for consideration by the committee which had been formed by UGC to frame Regulations on Minimum Qualifications, mode of recruitment/promotion, etc. for the posts of Registrar, Deputy Registrar. Assistant Registrar, Finance Officer, Deputy Finance Officer, Assistant Finance Officer, Controller of Examinations, Deputy Controller of Examinations, and Assistant Controller of Examinations in the universities and the deemed to be universities fully funded by the Central Government. The division bench said that in view of that notification, whether any such regulations have been framed by the UGC or not had to be ascertained.
Bench: Justices R Suresh Kumar and K Kumaresh Babu
Case Title: Batch of pleas
6. [Disproportionate Assets Case against Ex-CM O Panneerselvam] The Madras High Court has set aside a 2012 order of discharge to former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O Panneerselvam from the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) and his family in a disproportionate assets case. Exercising Suo Motu power of criminal revision, Justice N Anand Venkatesh noted "shocking and disturbing" facts, disclosing a "grave illegality at every stage" in a "well-orchestrated plan" by the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC), the state government and the court to ensure that the trial against the accused was derailed. The court issued notice to Paneerselvam and his family members seeking their personal appearance on September 27. "This is a pattern that I have seen in this case as well as the other cases. Whatever be their radical political differences, the accused political personages across party lines appear to be united in their endeavour to thwart and subvert the criminal justice system in this State," the judge said.
Bench: Justice N Anand Venkatesh
Case Title: Suo Motu Case
7. [Cases Against BJP Leader H Raja] The Madras High Court has refused to quash the criminal cases lodged against Tamil Nadu BJP leader H Raja for his remarks against Thanthai Periyar, also known as the father of the Dravidian Movement in Tamil Nadu, former Chief Minister Karunanidhi, DMK MP Kanimozhi, as well as officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department and their wives. A single judge bench passed orders in three different petitions filed by Raja to quash a total of 11 cases and in all three orders, the judge noted that Raja has "the proclivity to make irresponsible and damaging comments and that is the reason why he gets into trouble". Court held Raja's statement in all the cases hovering around hate speech. Court said that even when expressing an opinion, one, especially a former MLA, cannot cross the Lakshman Rekha and make a statement that directly affects the sentiments of the people. While ordering the transfer of all the cases to the concerned Special Court for MP/MLA Cases, court directed for their expeditious disposal.
Case Title: H.Raja v. State and Another
Please Login or Register
