mhc annual report 2011 2014
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
1/182
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
2/182
Madras HigH Court
REPORT
2011-2014
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
3/182
Madras High CourtReport 2011 - 2014
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
4/182
PROFILE OF SIR THIRUVARUR MUTHUSWAMY IYER - K.C.I.E.
Sir Thiruvarur Muthuswamy Iyer
was born on January 28, 1832, at
Uchuvadi in Tanjore District. His
father Venkatanarayana Sastry lost
his eyesight, when Muthuswamy was
eight years old. So, his childhood was
a grim struggle with poverty. He was
an apprentice under a village karnam
on a princely salary of a rupee per
month. Tahsildar Muthusami Nayak
was largely responsible for giving
him English education. Endowed by
nature with intelligence of a high order,he applied himself unsparingly to his
studies and attained high academic
distinctions and he worked his way
up until he reached the highest
judicial post open to an Indian. He
was appointed, as a District Munsiff,
and thereafter as a Deputy Collector.
Justice Holloway, who had gifted him a
copy of An Epitome of Alison’s Historyof Europe, as a token of the high esteem and regard he had for him, had to suggest three
names in 1865 for an appointment as Principal Sudder Amin(Sub Judge), South Canara
at Mangalore and he wrote the name of Muthuswamy Iyer thrice to mark and emphasis
the exclusiveness of his choice. Muthuswamy Iyer studied for his B.L. examination when
he was police Magistrate at Egmore, and passed in the rst class. In April 1870, he was
appointed the Third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. In July 1878, when he was
barely 46, he was appointed as Acting Judge, High Court of Madras. He was the rst
Indian to be elevated to that high ofce, to which, there was opposition from a section of
Europeans stating that it was an innovation to appoint an Indian to the highest Court in the
land, and that the experiment was bound to bring down its prestige. But, the success of
Muthuswamy Iyer as a Judge was so phenomenal that the place of Indians on the Bench
became assured for all times. He was conrmed in 1883, and he held that ofce till his death
which occurred on the 25th of January, 1895. His marble statue, erected at the instance of
the Chief Justice Sir Arthur Collins adorns the High Court buildings occupying a commanding
position within the buildings. The centenary of his birth was celebrated in February, 1932 with
considerable enthusiasm by the members of the Bar at Madras, under the presidency of
C.V.Kumaraswami Sastri.
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
5/182
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
6/182
Editorial Board
Justice S.NAGAMUTHU
Justice P.N.PRAKASH Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
7/182
This beautiful report, in its present form, with its classic compilation would
not have been in our hands, without the able assistance rendered by the dedicated
team of ofcers and staff of this Registry to this Editorial Board, with enormous
support from all quarters of this Registry.
We do not mince words in placing on record, our deep appreciation and
patting for the awless work done by the said team of ofcers and staff of this
Registry.
When it comes to any follies anywhere in this report, we have no hesitation
to claim and take the responsibility of the same onto us.
Editorial Board
Editorial Board:
Justice S.Nagamuthu
Justice P.N.Prakash
Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Acknowledgement
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
8/182
Team of Ofcers and Staff Members who assisted the Editorial Board
Mr. P. Kalaiyarasan, Registrar General
Mr. V.Nallasenapathy, Ofcial Assignee
Mrs. C.B.Meena, Deputy Registrar (Appellate Side)
Mr. S.Vijayakumaar, Assistant Registrar (Admin), Madurai Bench
Mr. T.N. Dhanunjaya Rao, Assistant Registrar (Admin.II)
Mr. C.Muralidharan, Court Manager - I
Mr. J.Prabhu, Court Manager - II
Mr. H.Narayanan, Section Ofcer
Mr. M.Vetrivel, Technical Assistant Mr. K.Gopinath, Assistant Section Ofcer
Mr. S.Rajendran, Assistant
Designed at
Sign Ghuru
Old No. 123/1, New No. 137,
T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018
E-Mail : [email protected]
Printed at
Gnanodaya Press
461, Nandanam,
Chennai - 600035. E-Mail : [email protected]
Published by
High Court of Madras.
www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in
© All Rights Reserved
No part of this publication be reproduced, transmitted or copied in any form,
mechanical, electronic or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Madras High Court.
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
9/182
Index ...
PART A
From The Desk of The Chief Justice 5
Prole Of The Hon’ble Judges As On 31.12.2014 11
Advocates General Of Tamil Nadu During 2011 - 2014 31
Living Legends Of The Bar 32
Full Benches Constituted During 2011-2014 33
Stare Decisis - March Of Law 35
PART B
From the Desk of the Registrar General 68
Registry 69
Working Strength Of District Judiciary In The State Of Tamil Nadu 71
Jurisdiction 76
Statistics 77
Constitution Of Courts 79
Infrastructure Development 85
Budget 90
The XIII Finance Commission 91
PART C
Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority 102
Union Territory Of Puducherry Legal Services Authority (State Authority) 119
Tamil Nadu Mediation And Conciliation Centre 128
Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, Chennai 134
PART D
Innovative Reforms – Marching Towards Excellence 150
Implementation Of E-Courts Project 158
Process Re-Engineering: 159
Model Courts 164
Photo Gallery 168
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
10/182
Looks Young Though 150 Years Old
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
11/182
Madras High Court
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
12/182
Part A
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
3
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
13/182
The Chief Justice of India
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. DATTU
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 4
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
14/182
T he sesqui-centennial institution thatis the Madras High Court is one of theearliest established High Courts of Judicature
in the country under the Queen’s Charter,
alongside the Bombay and Calcutta High
Courts. What could be more pleasurable,
yet humbling and onerous at the same timethan to be at the helm of affairs of this
historic Temple of Justice! It is even more
delightful to present the Madras High Court
Report for the period 2011–2014.
The greatness of any institution is
reflected by its glorious past, as much as
the novel initiatives it brings to the fore in
its day-to-day functioning that keep the flag
of institution flying high. In this era of short
shelf life, one cannot remain content with
the past laurels, but move forward eying
larger objectives, and an institution which
rises upto this challenge is bound to excel
and enhance its reputation. The Madras
High Court, with the rich history behind it,
has been striving hard towards balancing
tradition and at the same time, not losing out
in the race to keep abreast with modernity.
It is true that great deeds indeed remain
etched in the eons of history. I personally feel
that histories of great institutions should be
preserved in record form for the posterity
to cherish and reflect. Periodic reports are
From the Desk
The Chief Justice
of like progressc h a r t s ,giving a
g l i m p s e
of what
we have managed to achieve and also
throws light on the future vision towardswhich we have set sail. With this unenviable
objective in mind, the Editorial Committee,
comprising of my Brother and Sister Judges,
have set out on a journey to recollect and
record the past achievements of one of the
most illustrious institutions in the annals
of Indian Judiciary in the recent past and
also to lay bare the future vision, which is at
various stages of implementation.
The first and foremost task of any
judicial institution, more so of a High
Court of repute like ours, is dispensation of
justice. With a battery of eminent jurists
and doyens in the legal profession having
adorned this institution in the past – this
Court has the distinction of contributing a
number of Judges to the highest court of
the land – the onus is increasingly more
on the present generation to maintain the
high standards that have been set by our
illustrious predecessors. I am glad that the
Madras High Court has been earnest in its
quest to maintain such high standards.
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
5
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
15/182
As far as the statistics are concerned,
there has been a steady trend in disposal
of cases by our High Court. While the total
number of cases disposed of at the Principal
Seat and the Madurai Bench combined
was 2,40,767 in the year 2011; it was2,46,200 in the year 2012; and in the year
2013, it was 2,31,817; while the figure
was 2,35,087 in the year 2014. It was
found that the earlier practice of including
Interlocutory Applications (labelled
Miscellaneous Petitions) for arriving at the
disposal/pendency figure did not reflect the
actual numbers. Hence, commencing July
2014, it was decided to take into account
only the main cases, as is the practice in
other Courts, for the purpose of arriving
at the disposal/pendency statistics, and
so calculated, the pendency of cases upto
December 2014, excluding M.P.s, stood at
1,79,287. It is heartening to know that
despite the dwindling strength of Judges,
the statistics reflect a steady progress in
the disposal rate. Not just quantitatively,
there has been a better output even in terms
of quality, with wide ranging issues having
been given a quietus.
In its endeavour to make access to justice
a reality, our High Court has stepped up the
accelerator to fast-track disposal of cases
relating to the most vulnerable sections of
the society like women, children, elderly anddifferently-abled, as also targeting cases of
specific branches/enactments. Long pending
old cases are receiving urgent attention like
never before, what with the High Court as
well as the Subordinate Courts dedicating
one full day exclusively for disposing of old
cases, and incentives in the form of credit
points are also awarded to judicial officers
for disposal of such old cases.
Ours is one of the few High Courts which
has been successfully able to blend itself with
today’s technological advancements vis-à-
vis computerization of the entire judicial
setup, yet maintaining our traditional
background. The Home Page of the Madras
High Court Website has been completely
revamped, making it more user-friendly.
The Citizen’s Charter, which gives a bird’s
eye view of the High Court Campus and the
Case Status Bar, which updates the details
of cases as they are heard/disposed of in
each Court Hall enabling litigants/lawyers
to keep a track of their case, are recent
additions. There is instant uploading of all
Daily Orders/Judgments on the High Court
website for perusal/download of the general
public, which facility was until recently
restricted only to important judgments.
The High Court is also offering SMS servicefacility, passing on vital information to
advocates regarding their cases.
A new Case Information System has
been put in place, consisting of Flat Panel
TVs put up at various spots within the High
Court Campus. User-friendly Touch Screen
Information Kiosks have been installed at
vantage locations inside the High Court
compound, providing vital information
to the litigant/general public. To go with
it, Digital Signage Boards are erected at
prominent points, guiding litigant public
and first time visitors to the Court with
appropriate directions.
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 6
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
16/182
The concept of Paperless Courts is being
explored. Biometric Security System has
been introduced for regulating the entry and
exit of the members of the Registry, besides
the Web Payroll System and Personnel
Information System. Efforts are on, inconjunction with the State Government, for
complete digitization of case records. The
traditional rack system used for filing/
storing records is being done away with,
being replaced by Compactors.
The State Subordinate Judiciary, which
is a vital cog in the wheels of judicial
administration, can also boast of full
computerization. A complete digital
database of cases pending and disposed
of across the State is being maintained
centrally. All Courts/Judicial Officers have
been provided with Computers/Laptops with
high speed Broadband Connections and the
requisite legal software catering to their
needs. All the Subordinate Courts in the
State are well connected with the High Courtthrough the upgraded Video Conferencing
Facility.
These features are recent additions,
indicative of the fact that the High Court
is adept at assimilating technological
advancements in its fold and also indicative
that it is alive to the needs of the general
public, and it goes to show that the e-Court
Project is being implemented in the State
of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of
Puducherry in its full vigour.
Special emphasis is also laid in extending
the requisite infrastructure and bettering
the existing infrastructure so as to provide
a congenial working atmosphere to all
concerned. Pursuant thereto, five new
buildings have recently been inaugurated
for various purposes like the High Court
Auditorium, High Court Museum, Law
Officers’ Chambers, Advocates’ Canteenand Police Control Room.
Pursuant to the renovation and restoration
of the heritage sites in the court premises,
Heritage Tours are being organized in
the High Court premises, which have
received tremendous response from visitors
interested in the historic and architectural
excellence of this magnificent edifice.
A revamped Comprehensive Security
System has been put in place, providing
round-the-clock security cover for the High
Court premises, regulating the parking of
vehicles within the High Court premises
and controlling traffic in and out of the
High Court. It is planned to install CCTV
Cameras at prominent locations like Court
Halls, Record Rooms, various Sections of theRegistry and also the corridors of the High
Court.
The Madras High Court Mediation &
Conciliation Centre, which is now a decade
old, is taking giant strides and has become
a pioneer of sorts for other High Courts to
emulate. The Madras High Court Arbitration
Centre is coming up, on the lines of the
Delhi and Chandigarh model, for exploring
the hitherto unchartered territory of court-
annexed arbitration.
As regards Legal Aid Movement, the
Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority
has been spearheading the pendency
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
7
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
17/182
reduction campaign by adopting innovative
methodologies like conducting Continuous
Lok Adalats within the High Court premises
on all working days, presided over by
retired Judges of the High Court, apart
from holding Mega Lok Adalats from time totime in order to reduce pendency at various
levels. The disposal figures, which speak
for themselves, have been outstanding, with
regard to the number of cases disposed, as
also the quantum of compensation awarded.
This has paved the way for a remarkable
distinction of our High Court maintaining
first position in two consecutive National
Mega Lok Adalats. With the advent of
Multi Utility Vans for Propaganda of Legal
Literacy Programmes, justice is literally
being delivered at the doorsteps of litigant
public.
In the matter of imparting legal education
and training, the Tamil Nadu State Judicial
Academy, under the aegis of the National
Judicial Academy, is contributing in itsown unique way by conducting training
programmes and refresher courses on
various facets of law, not just to judicial
officers, but also for advocates and legal
personnel from the subordinate judiciary as
well as other fields.
The area of concern, however, remains
the vacancy position, both at the High
Court level and at the Subordinate Court
level. By taking measures on a war footing
in consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission, the High Court expedited
the process of filling up of vacancies at the
(Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul)
Subordinate level by conducting selection
of Civil Judges, and all vacancies in Tamil
Nadu and Union Territory of Puducherry are
being filled up. The vacancies at the High
Court are also expected to be filled up soon,
and once the strength reaches its full tilt, itis expected that the various measures taken
by the High Court would gain an upwards
momentum and this, in turn, would achieve
the avowed objective of dispensing justice in
a speedy and effective manner.
I must say that all the above is only a
fruition of the joint effort of my Brother/
Sister Judges, Members of various
Committees, Members of the Bar and
Members of the Registry, and it is expected
that the same amount of co-operation
would be forthcoming from all of them in
future years to come, for upholding the
majesty of this wonderful Temple of Justice
and subserving the common cause of
administration of justice.
I express my appreciation and sinceregratitude to the Members of the Editorial
Committee for putting up the compilation in
the form of this Annual Report.
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 8
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
18/182
The Chief Justice of High Court of Madras
Hon’ble Mr. Justice SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
9
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
19/182
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, born on December 26, 1958. Studied in
Modern School, New Delhi till 1976 and Graduated in Economics (Hons.) from St.
Stephens College, Delhi University in 1979. Obtained LL.B. Degree from Campus
Law Centre, Delhi University in 1982. Enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Council of
Delhi on July 15, 1982. Practised in Delhi High Court mainly in Commercial, Civil,
Writ, Original and Companies jurisdictions of the High Court of Delhi and the Supreme
Court of India. The cases also involved appearances before MRTP Commission,
Company Law Board, Debt Recovery Tribunal and Arbitrators apart from the other
nature of litigation including Constitutional, Banking, Finance and Insurance, Customs
and Excise, MRTP, Real Estate, Administrative, Co-operative, Commercial, Service,
Telecommunication, Anti- Dumping Laws, etc. Remained Advocate-on-Record of the
Supreme Court of India from 1987 to 1999 and designated as Senior Advocate in
December, 1999. Appointed Senior Counsel for the Delhi High Court and for the Delhi
University, Senior Panel of Union of India and Additional Senior Standing Counsel for
DDA. Elevated as Additional Judge of the High Court of Delhi on May 03, 2001 and
was appointed as a permanent Judge on May 02, 2003. His Lordship has been invited
to a number of national and international seminars and workshops as Chairman or
Member of Sessions and presented a number of papers with articles published in
various Journals. His Lordship was elevated as the Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High
Court w.e.f. 23.09.2012 to 25.09.2012 and then elevated as the Chief Justice of Punjab
and Haryana High Court w.e.f. 01.06.2013. His Lordship assumed charge as the Chief
Justice, Madras High Court on 26.07.2014.
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 10
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
20/182
PROFILE OF THE HON’BLE JUDGES as on 31.12.2014
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Agnihotri
Born on : 01.07.1956
Elevated as a Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court on 05.05.2005 Assumed ofce of the Judge High Court of Madras on 26.09.2013
Functioned as Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court from
13.02.2014 to 26.07.2014
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Jaichandren
Born on : 25.02.1955
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 10.12.2005
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Dhanapalan
Born on : 01.06.1953
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 10.12.2005
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Sudhakar
Born on : 14.02.1959
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 10.12.2005
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Tamilvanan
Born on : 06.02.1954
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 10.12.2005
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
11
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
21/182
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.Ramasubramanian
Born on : 30.06.1958
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 31.07.2006
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Manikumar
Born on : 24.04.1961
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 31.07.2006
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Selvam
Born on : 05.04.1956
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 31.07.2006
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.R. Shivakumar
Born on : 12.05.1954Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 18.09.2006
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Nagamuthu
Born on : 31.05.1955
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 22.03.2007
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Palanivelu
Born on : 11.05.1955
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 22.03.2007
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 12
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
22/182
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S. Ramanathan
Born on : 16.06.1953
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 31.03.2009
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K.Sasidharan
Born on : 28.10.1957
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 12.11.2007
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Rajendran
Born on : 01.04.1955
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 31.03.2009
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Venugopal
Born on : 07.05.1957
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 12.11.2007
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subbiah
Born on : 21.06.1959
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 24.03.2008
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.Sathyanarayanan
Born on : 10.06.1959
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 23.04.2008
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
13
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
23/182
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Hariparanthaman
Born on : 17.03.1954
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 31.03.2009
Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Selvam
Born on : 09.02.1957
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 31.03.2009
Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.S. Karnan
Born on : 12.06.1955
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 31.03.2009
Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Kirubakaran
Born on : 21.08.1959
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 31.03.2009
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh
Born on : 21.07.1962
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 31.03.2009
Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S.Sivagnanam
Born on : 16.09.1963
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 31.03.2009
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 14
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
24/182
Hon’ble Selvi. Justice R. Mala
Born on : 15.03.1955
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 31.03.2009
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Aruna Jagadeesan
Born on : 26.03.1953
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 31.03.2009
Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Mathivanan
Born on : 28.05.1955
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 17.02.2010
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Duraiswamy
Born on : 22.09.1960
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 31.03.2009
Hon’ble Selvi. Justice K.B.K.Vasuki
Born on : 09.09.1953
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 17.02.2010
Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Raja
Born on : 25.05.1961
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 31.03.2009
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
15
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
25/182
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Ravichandrabaabu
Born on : 14.10.1958
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 20.12.2011
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.Devadass
Born on : 15.05.1955
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 20.12.2011
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.Karuppiah
Born on : 07.04.1953
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 20.12.2011
Hon’ble Mrs.Justice S.Vimala
Born on : 11.01.1957
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 20.12.2011
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.N.Prakash
Born on : 12.01.1961
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 25.10.2013
Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Born on : 28.02.1960
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 25.10.2013
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 16
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
26/182
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kalyanasundaram
Born on : 27.05.1960
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 25.10.2013
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan
Born on : 17.08.1962
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 25.10.2013
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan
Born on : 10.06.1963
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 25.10.2013
Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.S. Ravi
Born on : 20.05.1954
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 25.10.2013
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chockalingam
Born on : 01.04.1955
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 25.10.2013
Hon’ble Selvi Justice V.M.Velumani
Born on : 06.04.1962
Elevated as Judge, High Court of Madras on 20.12.2013
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
17
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
27/182
His Excellency Mr. Surjit Singh Barnala, Governor of Tamil Nadu
Administering Oath of Ofce to the Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. YUSUF EQBAL
as Chief Justice of High Court of Madras on 11.06.2010
His Excellency Dr. K. Rosaiah, Governor of Tamil Nadu
Administering Oath of Ofce to the Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal
as Chief Justice of High Court of Madras on 24.10.2013
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 18
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
28/182
His Excellency Dr. K. Rosaiah, Governor of Tamil Nadu
Administering Oath of Ofce to the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Assumed Ofce of the Chief Justice of High Court of Madras on 26.07.2014
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
19
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
29/182
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.Sathasivam was born on
27.04.1949, to Palaniswamy and Natchiammal at
Kadappanallur near Bhavani in Erode District, Tamil
Nadu. His Lordship graduated from Government
Law College, Chennai after completing BA degree
from Ayya Nadar Janaki Ammal College, Sivakasi.
His Lordship enrolled as an advocate on 25th July
1973 at Madras. His Lordship was then appointed
to the post of Additional Government Pleader and
later as the Special Government Pleader in the
Madras High Court. His Lordship was appointed
as a permanent Judge of the Madras High Court
on 8th January 1996 and transferred to the Punjab
and Haryana High Court on 20th April 2007. His
Lordship was elevated to the post of Judge of the
Supreme Court on 21st August 2007. His Lordship
was elevated as the Chief Justice of India on 19th July 2013. During His Lordship’s tenure as
Chief Justice of India, His Lordship was the Chairman of the General Council of the Gujarat
National Law University. His Lordship succeeded Mrs.Sheila Dikshit as the Governor of
Kerala on 05th September 2014.
His Lordship authored several path-breaking judgments including the Reliance Gas
Judgment (May 2010), wherein he emphasised the use of natural resources through public
sector undertakings. His Lordship observed that “in a national democracy like ours, the
national assets belong to the people” and “the Government owns such assets for the
purpose of developing them in the interests of the people”. His Lordship also delivered
the verdict in the controversial triple-murder case of Stains and upheld the conviction of
Dara Singh. On 19th April 2010, His Lordship delivered the judgement in the Jessica Lal
murder case of 29th April 1999. Along with Justice B.S.Chauhan, His Lordship delivered the
judgement in the 1993 Mumbai blasts case, sentencing Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt to ve
years imprisonment under the Arms Act. Dutt was asked to serve out the remainder of his
sentence.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.Sathasivam
Former Chief Justice of India
Proud son of this great soil -
The First Chief Justice of India from Tamil Nadu
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 20
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
30/182
Strength of Judges, High Court of Madras
Sanctioned
Strength of
J u d g e s60
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
21
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
31/182
Strength of
Judges as on31.12.201443
Permanent Judges - 45
Additional Judges - 15
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 22
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
32/182
Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan, hails from Karur, Tamil Nadu. His Lordship was born
on 4th October 1951 and had His Lordship school education at Karur. His Lordship did
his Pre-University Course in St.Joseph’s College, Trichy and completed B.Sc. Degree in
Chemistry at Madura College, Madurai. His Lordship studied Law Course in Madras Law
College and secured Third Rank in the Final University Examination in April, 1974. His
Lordship did M.L. Course in Criminal Law and secured First Rank in 1977. His Lordship
practiced as Junior Advocate under K. Parasaran, Former Attorney General of India. His
Lordship was a Part-Time Professor in Madras Law College for 7 years. His Lordship
was directly recruited as District and Sessions Judge
in 1987 and worked as District and Sessions Judge at
Cuddalore, Salem and Coimbatore. Thereafter, worked
as the Special Ofcer, Vigilance Cell, Madras High Court.
His Lordship was elevated as a Judge of The Madras High
Court on 27.9.2000 and appointed as a permanent Judgeon 20.09.2002. His Lordship was then further elevated as
the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court and sworn in
on 27.02 2013. His Lordship was appointed as a Judge of
The Supreme Court of India and sworn in on 19.09.2013.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla was born on
23rd July 1951, in Karaikudi, Sivagangai District, Tamil
Nadu, His Lordship enrolled as an advocate on 20th
August 1975, after which His Lordship began practicing
labour law in the law rm of T.S. Gopalan & Co. On 2nd
March 2000, His Lordship was appointed as a Judge of
the Madras High Court. In February 2011, His Lordship
became a member of the High Court of Jammu and
Kashmir and was appointed to serve as the Acting Chief
Justice two months later. In September 2011, His Lordship
was named as the Chief Justice of High Court of Jammu
and Kashmir. His Lordship was appointed as a Judge of
The Supreme Court of India and sworn in 2nd April 2012.
SITTING JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FROM THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
H o n ’ b l e M r . J u s t i c e F . M . I
b r a h i m K
a l i f u l l a
H o n ’ b l e M r . J u s t i c e C . N
a g a p p a n
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
23
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
33/182
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.Y.Eqbal was born on 13th
February 1951 and completed B.Sc. Examination from
Ranchi University in the year 1970 and obtained LL.B.
Degree in 1974 with Distinction (Gold Medalist). His
Lordship enrolled as an Advocate in 1975 and initially
practised exclusively in civil side in civil courts, Ranchi.
Shifted practice to Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court
in 1986 and became Government Pleader in the Ranchi
Bench of Patna High Court in 1990. In 1993 His Lordship
became Government Advocate in the High Court. In these
periods practised in civil, criminal, Constitutional and
tax matter. Also worked as retained Counsel and Legal
Adviser of almost all the Banks, Insurance Companies, Electricity Board, Housing Board,
University and other Government and semi Government Undertakings. Appointed aspermanent Judge of the Patna High Court on 9th May 1996. By Notication dated 14th
November 2000 became the Judge of the Jharkhand High Court. His Lordship was the
Chief Justice of the Madras High Court from 11th June 2010 to 21st December 2012 and
elevated as Judge of Supreme Court of India on 24th December 2012.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Agrawal hails from Uttar Pradesh. His Lordship
was born on 05th May, 1953. His Lordship did his graduation in Law from Allahabad
University. His Lordship enrolled as Advocate on 14.08.1976. Joined the chamber of his
father Sri Raja Ram Agrawal, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General of Uttar
Pradesh on Civil side and dealt with Constitutional, Company, Service, Educational and
Taxation matters. Worked as Standing Counsel of the
Income Tax Department of the Government of India.
Served a number of corporations and institutions as their
Standing Counsel. His Lordship was Joint Editor of U.P.
Tax Cases. His Lordship was elevated as permanent
Judge of the Allahabad High Court on 05.02.1999. His
Lordship assumed ofce as Acting Chief Justice, High
Court of Madras on 07.02.2013 and Assumed ofce as
Chief Justice, High Court of Madras on 24.10.2013. His
Lordship was appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court
of India and sworn in on 17.02.2014.
H o n ’ b l e M r . J u s t i c e M . Y
. E q b a l
H o n ’ b l e M r . J u s t i c e R . K . A g r a w a l
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 24
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
34/182
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi was born on
20.07.1955 is a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of
India. Earlier Her Lordship had served as the Chief
Justice of Jharkhand High Court and Judge at Madras
High Court. Her Lordship had joined Tamil Nadu Higher
Judicial Service in 1988 as a direct recruit district judge.
As a sessions judge, Her Lordship dealt with number of
landmark cases and also headed one-person commission
on police excess by STF in Chinnampathy village in
Coimbatore district in 1995-1996. In April 2003, after
serving at various posts in the subordinate judiciary, Her
Lordship was then elevated as judge of the Madras High
Court. There Her Lordship dealt with many important cases including a ban on Jallikattu
or bull ght. The verdict paved the way for formulating regulations relating to Jallikattu. In
November 2013, Her Lordship was transferred to the Jharkhand High Court and appointed
as Chief Justice of that court at the same time. Within a matter of months, in August 2014,
Her Lordship was elevated to the Supreme Court of India. Her Lordship is the second
woman sessions judge to rise to the country’s highest court.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.Murugesan was born in Cumbum Pudupatti,
Theni District, Tamil Nadu on the 10th June, 1951 and
His Lordship completed Bachelor of Science Degree
course from Thaigarajar College, Madurai in 1972. His
Lordship completed Bachelor of General Law course from
the Madras University in 1974 and was a gold medalist
with rst rank in Bachelor of Law degree course from the
same University in 1975. His Lordship joined the legal
profession the same year. As an advocate His Lordship
honed his skills under the guidance of eminent seniors like
Mr.K.K.Venugopal and Mr.Rangarajan Kumarmangalam.
During His Lordship’s illustrious legal career, served as the
Standing Counsel for Madras University, the Corporation
H o n ’ b l e M r s .
J u s t i c e R . B a n u m a t h i
CHIEF JUSTICES ELEVATED FROM THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
H o n ’ b l e M r . J u s t i c e D . M
u r u g e s a n
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
25
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
35/182
Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar was Born on
15.03.1955. Passed M.A., M.L. Enrolled in the year 1980.Was Junior to Late Mr. T. Martin. Was given a Honorary
post of member in Ecclesiastical Synod Courts, C.S.I.
Specialist in Service Law, Labour Law and Education
matters. Held the post of Senior Standing Counsel for
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and also Standing
Counsel for Central Government. Appointed as Additional
Judge of High Court of Madras on 10.12.2005 and as
Permanent Judge on 20.04.2007. His Lordship elevated
as Chief Justice of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir on
02.02.2015 H o n ’ b l e M r . J u s t i c e N .
P a u l V a s a n t h a k
u m a r
of Chennai and Selection Committee for MBBS, P.G. and Super Speciality courses from
1994-2000. He also served as the Special Government Pleader and Government Pleader
for the Government of Tamil Nadu from 1994 to 2000. His Lordship was appointed as a
Judge of the Madras High Court on the 2nd March, 2000. During His Lordship’s tenure of
more than 12 years in the Madras High Court, His Lordship disposed of more than 1.30 lakh
cases. His Lordship also presided over various Administrative Committees, served as the
Chairman of COFEPOSA Board and the President of Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy
for over a period of three years. His Lordship was elevated as Chief Justice of Delhi High
Court on 26th September 2012 and His Lordship took several important decisions including,
among others, implementation of Right to Education from nursery classes to ensure equal
opportunity to students of all sections, ban on sale of junk food in schools, reforms in Tihar
jail, more night shelters for homeless, periodical surprise check of fruits and vegetables in
city markets for pesticides residue, suo motu cognizance of the December 16 Delhi gang
rape and setting up of a special court for day-to-day hearing of the case for expeditioustrial, directions to all lower courts to hold day-to-day hearings of sexual assault cases and
directions to all private hospitals to admit victims of heinous crimes like rape and murder.
His Lordship assumed ofce as Member of the National Human Rights Commission on the
21st September, 2013.
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 26
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
36/182
List of Honourable Chief Justices of This High Court
2011 - 2014
List of Honourable Acting Chief Justices of
This High Court 2011 - 2014
Hon’ble The Chief Justices of High Court of Madras
Elevated as Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court of Indiaduring 2011 - 2014
Sl.No. Name of Hon’ble The Chief JusticePeriod as Chief Justice
From To
1. Justice M. Yusuf Eqbal 11.06.2010 21.12.2012
2. Justice Rajesh Kumar Agrawal 24.10.2013 12.02.2014
3. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul 26.07.2014 -
Sl.No. Name of Hon’ble JudgePeriod as Acting Chief Justice
From To
1. Justice Elipe Dharma Rao 22-12-2012 06-02-2013
2. Justice Rajesh Kumar Agrawal 07-02-2013 23-10-2013
3. Justice Sathish Kumar Agnihotri 12-02-2014 25-07-2014
Sl.NoName of the
Hon’ble The Chief Justice
Period served in
the Madras High
Court
Elevated as Judge,
Supreme Court of
India on
1. Justice M. Yusuf Eqbal11.06.2010 to
21.12.201224.12.2012
2. Justice Rajesh Kumar Agrawal24.10.2013 to
12.02.2014
17.02.2014
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
27
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
37/182
Hon’ble Judges of Madras High Court presently serving in
Other High Courts.
Sl.NoName of Hon’ble
JudgeServing in
1. Justice M. JeyapaulHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana,
Chandigarh w.e.f 28.10.2010
2. Justice K. KannanHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana w.e.f.
05.11.2008
3. Justice Raja Elango
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the
State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh w.e.f. 25.03.2010
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 28
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
38/182
Hon’ble Judges Served and Retired
During the period from 2011-2014, with the Date of Retirement
Justice M.Chockalingam
16-02-2011
Justice K.Mohan Ram
27-05-2012
Justice Elipe Dharma Rao
14-07-2013
Justice P. Jyothimani
25-10-2012
Justice Chitra Venkataraman
21.04.2014
Justice K.N.Basha
13-05-2013
Justice K. Suguna
09-10-2013
Justice S. Rajeswaran
31.10.2014
Justice P.P.S. Janarthana Raja
20-01-2013
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
29
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
39/182
Justice Vinod K.Sharma
24-05-2013
Justice K.Venkataraman
08.05.2013
Justice K. Chandru
08-03-2013
Justice T. Sudanthiram
14-08-2013
Justice G. Rajasuria
22-08-2013
Justice V.Periya Karuppiah
04-10-2012
Justice M. Vijayaraghavan
16-11-2013
Justice A.Arumugha Swamy
27.04.2014
Justice G.M.Akbar Ali
22.11.2014
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 30
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
40/182
Advocates General of Tamil Nadu during 2011 - 2014
Sl.No. Name of the Advocate GeneralPeriod
From To
1. Mr. P.S. Raman 30-07-2009 19-05-2011
2. Mr. A.Navaneethakrishnan 29-05-2011 07-03-2013
3. Mr. A.L.Somayaji 08-03-2013 -
Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan was born on 18.05.1956 at
Ponnappur West in Orathanadu Taluk of Thanjavur District
Hailing from a typical agricultural family, he had his collegiateeducation from A.V.V.M. Sri Pushbam College, Poondi and he
took his Law Degree from the Madras Law College. Intially
started his practice in Mofussil Bar of Thanjavur, he soon shifted
his practice to Chennai. He was a member of the TNPSC and
later was appointed as the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu on
29-05-2011. Subsequently he was appointed as the Chairman
of TNPSC and then elected as Member of Parliament, Rajya
Sabha from Tamil Nadu.
Pattabhi Sundar Raman was born on November 7, 1960.
His father was an Indian lawyer V.P. Raman, who has served
as the Advocate-General of Government of Tamil Nadu from
1977 to 1979. He did his schooling in Vidya Mandir, Chennai
and graduated in Commerce from Loyola College, Chennai and
he has obtained his Law Degree from the Madras Law College.
He started practicing as a lawyer in 1985 and founded the law
rm Raman and Associates in the year 1991. Raman practicedin the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court of India, and
in September 2004, he was designated as Senior Advocate of
the Madras High Court. On June 11, 2006, he was appointed
as Additional Advocate-General of Tamil Nadu and became the
Advocate-General of Government of Tamil Nadu on 30.07.2009
and he held ofce till 19.05.2011.
Mr.A.L.Somayaji was a lawyer of higher order and havinga wider experience in Constitutional issues as well as labour
matters. He has having a strong grounding in labour issues
having worked under renowned stalwarts under M/s. Aiyar
Dolia. He had held the post of Additional Advocate General of
Tamil Nadu. He was appointed as Advocate General of Tamil
Nadu on 08-03-2013.
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
31
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
41/182
Mr.K.K.Venugopal, Senior Advocate was born on
6th September 1931. He is the son of the illustrious
MK.Nambiar, Advocate who famously defended
the right to life and personal liberty in AK.Gopalan
Vs. State of Madras. He completed his law degree
from Raja Lakhamgouda Law College, Belgaum
Karnataka. He enrolled as an advocate in January
1954. In 1972, he was designated as Senior Counsel by the Supreme Court of India. He
was appointed the Additional Solicitor General of India from 1979 to 1980. In 1995, he wasappointed as President of SAARAC LAW. In 1996, he was appointed as the President of
Union Internationale des Avocats. He has also been appointed as Vice President of Bar
Association of India. He is the Member of Executive Council and the General Council of the
West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Calcutta. He is also a Prestigious
Member of NALSAR, Hyderabad. He has also been conferred with Padma Bushan in 2002
by the President of India. In the year 2015 he was awarded Padma Vibushan.
LIVING LEGENDS OF THE BARMr.K.Parasaran was born on October 9, 1927 at
Sri Rangam as the son of Kesava Iyengar, a doyen
of Madras Bar. He passed his S.S.L.C. in the year
1942 from Hindu High School, Triplicane, Chennai
and completed his graduation from PresidencyCollege, Chennai in the year 1944. He went on
to complete his Degree in Law from Madras Law
College in 1949. He had been awarded Justice C.V. Kumarasamy Shastri Sanskrit Medal in
B.A., and Justice Sri V.Bhashyam Iyengar Gold Medal in Hindu Law in B.L., He was also the
recipient of Justice K.S.Krishnaswamy Iyengar Medal in the Bar Council examination. Mr.
K.Parasaran enrolled in the Supreme Court of India in 1958 and he was appointed Central
Government Senior Standing Counsel in the Madras High Court in 1971. On 17.06.1976, he
was appointed Advocate General of Tamil Nadu, but he resigned after a year in June 1977.He was appointed as Solicitor General of India in February 1980 and he held that post from
06th March 1980 to 08th August 1983. Since then to November 1989 he was appointed
as Attorney General of India. Mr.Parasaran was awarded an Honounary Degree of Doctor
of Laws from Annamalai University in 1989. He has been nominated as a Member of the
National Commission for Review of Working of the Constitution. In the year 2003, he was
awarded the Padma Bushan by the President of India and Padma Vibushan in the year
2011. In June 2012, he was nominated to the Council of States (Rajya Sabha).
Mr.K.Parasaran
Mr.K.K.Venugopal
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 32
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
42/182
FULL BENCHES CONSTITUTED DURING 2011-2014
PRINCIPAL SEAT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
MONTH &
YEARCORAM
April
2011The Chief Justice, Justice P.Jyothimani & Justice T.S.Sivagnanam
July
2011
Justice Chitra Venkatraman, Justice P.P.S.Janarthana Raja &
Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar
July
2011The Chief Justice, Justice P.Jyothimani & Justice T.S.Sivagnanam
August
2011Justice K.N.Basha, Justice T.Sudanthiram & Justice S.Nagamuthu
August
2011The Chief Justice, Justice P.Jyothimani & Justice T.S.Sivagnanam
March
2012Justice Elipe Dharma Rao, Justice D.Murugesan & Justice M.Venugopal
September
2012Justice Elipe Dharma Rao, Justice D.Murugesan & Justice M.Venugopal
November
2012Justice R.Banumathi, Justice P.R.Shivakumar & Justice S.Nagamuthu
April
2013
Justice Elipe Dharma Rao, Justice S.Rajeswaran & Justice M.Venugopal
April
2013
The Acting Chief Justice, Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar &
Justice M.Sathyanarayanan
September
2013
The Acting Chief Justice, Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar &
Justice M.Sathyanarayanan
January
2014
Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar, Justice R.S.Ramanathan &
Justice K.Ravichandrabaabu
April
2014
Justice S.Rajeswaran, Justice R.Subbiah & Justice R.S.Ramanathan
August
2014
Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar,Justice R.S.Ramanathan &
Justice K.Ravichandrabaabu
September
2014Justice S.Rajeswaran, Justice R.Subbiah & Justice R.S.Ramanathan
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
33
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
43/182
FULL BENCHES CONSTITUTED DURING 2011-2014
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
MONTH &
YEARCORAM
July
2011The Chief Justice, Justice P.Jyothimani & Justice T.S.Sivagnanam
September
2011Justice P.Jyothimani & Justice M.Duraiswamy & Justice Aruna Jagadeesan
December
2012Justice K.N.Basha, Justice T.Sudanthiram & Justice P.Devadass
August
2013Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar, Justice T.Mathivanan & Justice P.Devadass
November
2013Justice M. Jaichandren, Justice S. Nagamuthu & Justice M.Venugopal
November
2013Justice M. Jaichandren, Justice M.Venugopal & Justice T.Raja
January
2014
Justice R.Sudhakar, Justice S.Tamilvanan, Justice A.Selvam,
Justice M.Sathyanarayanan & Justice B.Rajendran
February
2014
Justice R.Sudhakar, Justice S.Tamilvanan, Justice A.Selvam,
Justice M.Sathyanarayanan & Justice B.Rajendran
September
2014
Justice M.Jaichandren, Justice K.K.Sasidharan & Justice R.Mahadevan
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 34
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
44/182
Stare Decisis - March of Law
2011 -2014
In the ever expanding universe, nothing can be static. Law is no exception. Law may
apparently appear to be dormant and sleeping in hide bound books but it silently undergoes
metamorphosis and manifests in manifold dimensions at the hands of adroit Judges. We
concluded the previous edition of the March of Law with the following words, “Therefore,
we make every endeavour to take the law to the next level, so as to serve humanity best.”
In keeping with this assurance the Madras High Court has indeed elevated the legal
discourse to the next higher level. What we have given hereunder is not exhaustive, for, the
number is so high that it became a daunting task for us to pick and choose from the best for
accommodating them within the allotted space. Now, let us begin our journey.
No God demands that people should ght over worshiping. The divisiveness in thesociety to an extent that even over the issue of worshiping in temples, there is
a ght. If people can not peacefully worship, then the temple would have to be
locked. With these observations, the First Bench of this Court in E.Saman v. District
Collector [W.P.No.20464 of 2014 dated 24.11.2014], upheld the decision taken by
the Administrator of a temple in locking the same as peace was disturbed on account
of ght between two groups. This judgment reects the displeasure of this court in
the deep rooted caste system which many a times, is the cause for disturbance to
peace and tranquility.
2. In Uthapuram Village, in Madurai District, a wall was erected dividing the habitations
on the basis of caste preventing one group from entering into the habitations of
the other group. It was a case of human wall erected on the basis of colour, creed
and caste. The Madurai Bench of this Court stepped into the issue as a result of
which a Historic agreement was reached between the parties allowing entry of the
Scheduled Caste people of the village in temples. Dealing with Social Justice and
Equality, the Madurai Bench of this Court in Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2012)
2 CTC 561], following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lata Singh v. State
of U.P. [(2006 (5) SCC 475], cursed the cancerous growth of the caste system.
This Court also held that if will of the people is strong, solutions can be found in the
absence of State intervention besides observing that Wall (Caste) divided but Will
(power) united.
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
35
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
45/182
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
46/182
and the State is liable to pay compensation to the victims. During an agitation
by a political party, some miscreants caused extensive damage to the properties
of the citizens. Applying the doctrine of “vicarious liability” this court directed the
State to pay compensation to the victim and also gave liberty to the Government
to recover the amount from the miscreants by invoking the provisions of “The Tamil
Nadu Public Property [Prevention of Damages and Loss] Act, 1992”. [vide Ganesan
v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2012) 2 CTC 848].
5. Our natural resources are the national assets. There was public outcry that there
were large scale illegal mining of sand and granites in the State. Such illegal miners
took a strange plea that in respect of the offences committed under “The Mines and
Minerals [Development and Regulation] Act, 1957” as well as the Indian Penal Code,
1860, the police has no power to register a case and to investigate. A Division Bench
of this court in Sengol v. State, 2012 (2) CTC 369, rejected the said plea and heldthat if the act of the accused constitutes offences under “The Indian Penal Code,
1860” as well as under the provisions of “The Mines and Minerals [Development and
Regulation] Act, 1957”, registration of a case both under the provisions of the “Indian
Penal Code, 1860” and “The Mines and Minerals [Development and Regulation] Act,
1957” is not illegal and the police shall le police report in respect of the offences
punishable under the Indian Penal Code and in respect of offences punishable under
“The Mines and Minerals [Development and Regulation] Act, 1957,” the police ofcer
may le a separate complaint provided he has been so authorized under Section 22of “The Mines and Minerals [Development and Regulation] Act, 1957”. The contrary
views taken by the different High Courts in this regard were overruled and the view
taken by this court was afrmed by the Supreme Court in State of NCT of Delhi
v. Sanjay, 2015 AIR SC 75 [Criminal Appeal No.499 of 2011 by judgment dated
04.09.2014]. After the above judgment in Sengol’s case several cases have been
registered against the illegal granite and sand miners. Cracking down on the alleged
illegal mining, a Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice, on a Public
Interest Litigation led by one Mr.Trafc Ramaswamy in W.P.No.16841 of 2014 hasappointed an IAS ofcer as a Special Ofcer to probe all granite mining contracts
and the license given to various private companies to nd out as to whether there
was any misuse. This order has brought cheers among the public.
6. Preserving our national resources is the need of the hour. A Division Bench of this
Court, in M. Palanisamy vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Industries
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
37
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
47/182
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and others , 2012 (4) CTC 1, expressed
its anguish that excessive in-stream sand-and-gravel mining from river beds and
like resources causes the degradation of rivers. In-stream mining lowers the stream
bottom, which leads to bank erosion. Depletion of sand in the stream-bed and along
coastal areas causes the deepening of rivers and estuaries and enlargement of river
mouths and coastal inlets. It also leads to saline-water intrusion from the nearby
sea. The effect of mining is compounded by the effect of sea level rise. Any volume
of sand exported from stream-beds and coastal areas is a loss to the system. There
cannot be any two opinions that natural resources are the assets of the nation and
its citizens. Article 48A of the Constitution requires that the State shall endeavour to
protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wild life of the
country. Similarly, Article 51A enjoins a duty upon every citizen to protect and improve
the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have
compassion for all the living creatures. The court, therefore, held that the obligation
of all concerned, including the Central and the State Governments, is to conserve
and not waste such valuable resources. In view of the constitutional provisions, “the
Doctrine of Public Trust” has become the law of the land. The said doctrine rests on
the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and forests are of such great
importance to the people as a whole that it would be highly unjustiable to make
them a subject of private ownership. After having expressed the said concern, the
Division Bench upheld the constitutionality of Rule 38-C inserted by the State to the
Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 for the purpose of bringing and
restricting the illegal mining operation, transportation and storage of minerals. This
judgment has virtually restored complete control of mining activities in the State to
a greater extent.
7. While preserving the natural resources, the developmental activities can not
be taken to the back seat. When an issue on a proposed developmental activity
affecting preservation of environment/water sources is raised, undoubtedly, no court
would ever allow a developmental activity to take place at the cost of putting at brinksafeguards to the water sources or the environment. However, when the court is
satised with sufcient and adequate materials that a developmental activity may
not affect the ecological balance or preservation of water sources and that, with the
advantage of innovative technology, no detriment would result to the water sources
or ecology, there may not be any impediment to allow such project to proceed and
have its completion for the use and benet of the public at large. When the National
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 38
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
48/182
Highways Authority of India started to lay the road across certain water bodies and
rivers, it was an issue before this court in National Highways Authority of India through
Project Director v. Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, (2014) 1
MLJ 644 wherein after balancing between development and the risk of detriment to
ecological balance and preservation of water sources, this court after having regard
to the undertaking from NHAI not to in any manner disturb the ecological balance
and water sources permitted the NHAI to complete the remaining project without
contravening the undertaking given to the court in respect of preservation of water
bodies.
8. The right to exist on par with human beings, though is conferred upon the animals
through legislation, yet, when the existence and the right of the animals are infringed,
it is only through human beings, such rights could be extended on the affected
animals. In this context, when an injury or infringement on the rights of the animalswas noticed, this Court deemed it just to seize the opportunity to render justice to
the poor animals, which could not plead and initiate action. When permission was
sought to conduct cock-ght as a part of community festival, this court, applying the
provisions of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1950 and taking note of the
sufferings of the birds in the cock-ght, declined to grant permission for such cock-
ght and also suggested to the Government to prohibit cock-ght. While doing so,
this court quoted the father of the Nation who said “The greatness of a nation and
its moral progress can be measured by the way in which its animals are treated”.[Vide S.Kannan v. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City,Madurai, 2014 (3)
CTC 676].
9. When we are prepared to protect even the rights of animals, we cannot show
Nelson’s eye to the plight of our own brothers / sisters – The transgenders. The
Transgenders, need the empathy of all, unfailingly. The transgender people are
considered neither as males nor as females for the purposes of employment and
they are put to lot of humiliation and ridicule. When a girl, who was born and broughtup and also recognized by this country as a girl, was discharged from the police
service branding her as a transgender, this court held that she shall be treated as a
woman for all purposes as she has been so recognized by the society and ordered
restoring her to service. This court distinguished the sex in the eld of human biology
and the sex in the eld of human psychology. This judgment is a great boon to the
transgender community [vide Nangai v. Superintendent of Police, Karur, 2014 (1)
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
39
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
49/182
CWC 678 : 2014(4) LW 364 : 2014(3) CTC 497: 2014(4) MLJ 12 : 2014(3) KLT 22
(SN) (C.No.24)].
10. Surrogacy has come as a boon for the couple who yarn for a child. When the
surrogate mother carries the child in her womb, she also needs rest and medical
attention, both before and after delivery. Similarly, the biological mother also needs
time to spend with the child to look after. Whether a mother, who obtained child
through surrogacy, is entitled to Maternity Leave was answered by this Court in the
afrmative in K.Kalaiselvi v. Chennai Port Trust (2013 (2) CTC 400) by holding that
the purpose of the Rule is to facilitate bonding between the child and the parents and
that the Rule is applicable in case of adoptive mothers also and hence, surrogate
mother is entitled to Maternity Leave for child care.
11. The High Court, being an institution to protect the welfare of the poor, was confrontedwith a question whether for granting educational loan to the students, the prerequisite
is that the candidate should have secured 60 marks in the qualifying examination.
The court held that it is not necessary and it is sufce that the candidate had
secured minimum qualifying marks for admission. This has paved way for many
poor students in the State to join Professional Colleges on the strength of the
educational loans. [vide Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank v. A. Ravi, 2014
(4) CTC 363].
12. This court, taking note of suyamarithai form of Hindu Marriage, which are valid in
the State of Tamil Nadu, held that a valid marriage does not necessarily mean that
all the customary rights pertaining to the married couple are to be followed and
subsequently solemnized. This court further expressed its view that if a woman aged
18 or above has sexual relationship with a man, aged 21 or above, and during the
course of such relationship, if the woman becomes pregnant, she would henceforth
be treated as the ‘wife’ and the man would be treated as the ‘husband’. Even if the
girl does not become pregnant after having such sexual relationship with a man but
if there is strong documentary evidence to show the existence of such relationship
then also the couple involved in such acts would be termed as “wife” and “husband”.
This court further went on to declare that even after such a sexual relationship, if
both decide to separate due to difference of opinion, the ‘husband’ cannot marry
without getting a decree of divorce from the Court of law against the ‘wife’. So far
as the choice of the youths in choosing their life partner, this court held that if a
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 40
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
50/182
bachelor has completed 21 years of age and a spinster 18 years of age respectively
then they acquire the freedom of choice as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
[Vide Aysha v. Ozir Hassan (2013) 3 LW 870 : (2013) 4 CTC 90 : (2013) 2 MWN (Cri)
254 : (2013) 5 Mad LJ 31].
13. There was an alarming situation at the hands of land grabbers and anti-social
elements resorting to white collar crimes looting away the valuable landed properties
through different novel methods. Between 03.11.2011 and 18.10.2012, the District
Registrars have received 3400 complaints and the Inspector General of Registration
received 2751 such complaints of fraud. The Inspector General of Registration
issued a circular to the registering ofcers to order annulment of a document by
following three vital steps viz., (a) the District Registrar has to conduct an enquiry
on complaints of fraudulent registrations; (b) if fraud is proved, the Registering
Ofcer is directed to le FIR as per Section 83 of the Act; and (c) the RegisteringOfcer also has to make an endorsement by way of note of annulment in relevant
books as per the settled principle of law that once fraud in unraveled, act of fraud
become non-est. This circular was challenged in a batch of writ petitions before
the Madurai Bench in Ramasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary ,
Revenue Department and others, 2014 (4) CTC 627. This court held under Section
68 (2) of The Registration Act, the registrar shall have authority to issue any order
consistent with this Act which includes an order of annulment. The circular of the
Inspector General of Registration is only in tune with Section 68(2) of the Act whichwill not amount to exceeding the power of the Inspector General of Registration as
simply lling up an existing vacuum till the legislature chooses to make appropriate
laws does not amount to taking over the functions of the legislature. The said circular
is only an interim measure to ll up the lacunae in dealing with the menace of the
fraudulent transactions till a suitable rule is brought in or inserted in the statute and
thus it is valid.
14. A Division Bench of this Court, in R. Muthukrishnan v. Union of India [2014 (2)CTC 673] (DB), in a Public Interest Litigation led challenging the Direct Benet
Transfer Scheme for Liqueed Petroleum Gas announced by the Union of India,
while answering the preliminary issue framed as to whether an Advocate is entitled
to argue in a Public Interest Litigation with his robes, held that in a case where the
Advocate himself is the litigant, he shall not be entitled to any rights and privileges as
an Advocate while appearing in person for his own cause. The Bench also observed
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
41
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
51/182
that a person cannot appear or plead before a Court of law in dual capacity, one as
party and the other as Advocate and when an Advocate is appearing as Party-in-
person, he is bound to maintain norms and decorum of legal profession.
15. Madurai Bench of this court was born in 2004. Some time later, a reasonable doubt
arose in respect of the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench and Madurai
Bench. This issue was referred to a Full Bench in B.Stalin v. The Registrar, Supreme
Court of India, New Delhi and others (2012) 4 CTC 113 : (2012) 5 MLJ 655 : AIR
2012 Mad 259: (2012) 3 LW 489. The Full Bench answered the reference stating
that the Chief Justice of the High Court is the Master of the Rolls and, therefore, he
alone is the competent authority to decide the posting of the matters either before
the Principal Bench or before the Madurai Bench. Referring to the Presidential Order
and following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan High Court
Advocates’ Association Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 294,the Full Bench held that in case a dispute arises as to whether an individual case or
cases should be led and heard in the Principal Bench or in the Madurai Bench, the
same should be resolved by applying the test - from which district the case arises,
that is, in which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen. Then, the Full
Bench eventually held that it is the cause of action, either in full or in part, which
decides the territorial jurisdiction between the Principal Bench and the Madurai
Bench in each case.
16. An important question involving a constitutional issue as to whether a Former
Chairman of the State Public Service Commission is debarred from being appointed
as the Advocate General for the State came up for consideration before a Division
Bench in S.Kasiramalingam v. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and
others, 2012 (5) CTC 819. This court, after having extensively dealt with various
constitutional provisions, more particularly, Article 319 (d) of the Constitution of
India, held that the Ofce of the Advocate General is not an employment under
the State Government and, thus, there is no constitutional bar for the appointmentof a former Chairman of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as the Advocate
General for the State.
17. Separation of powers among the three organs of the Government is an essential
feature of the Constitution. While dealing with the doctrine of separation of powers,
in T.Xavier v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 (3) CTC 802, this court held that when
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 42
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
52/182
an individual is recommended by the selection committee under the Chairmanship of
the State Consumer Commission for the post of the President of District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, under “The Consumer Protection Act, 1986” it is for the
State to act on that. The power conferred on the Executive is only to nalize the
name sent by the Selection Committee and not to call upon the judicial authority to
send a panel of names. The appointing authority also cannot appoint a person who
has not been recommended by the selection committee.
18. The Suspension of the Hon’ble Opposition Leader of the Tamil Nadu Legislative
Assembly by the Assembly was under challenge before this court in Vijayakant v.
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly rep. By its Secretary, 2012 (3) CTC 449 wherein
this court dealt with Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India which imposes a bar
upon any Court to call in question, the validity of any proceedings in the Legislature
of a State, on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. Relying on RajaRam Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabh, (2007) 3 SCC 184, this court held that the
area of powers, privileges and immunities of the legislature, being exceptional and
extraordinary and hence if acts are not to be tested on the traditional parameters
of judicial review, this Court would conne itself to the acknowledged parameters
of judicial review and within the judicially discoverable and manageable standards.
This court further held that a complaint of infringement of fundamental right should
always be examined both at the instance of a member of the House as well as at the
instance of a non member, especially when it results in civil consequences. In otherwords, the expressions “fundamental right under Article 20 or Article 21” and “civil
consequences” as dealt with in Raja Ram Pal’s case should go together. Applying
the said test, this court examined all the contentions and nally held that there were
no grounds made out for the exercise of the power of judicial review.
19. The question, whether a person, who was summoned to appear and show cause
by the Privilege Committee constituted by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, is
entitled to be represented along with an Advocate of his choice in the proceedings,came up for consideration, in E. Edwig v. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly [2013 (1)
CTC 774]. This Court, after elaborately discussing the provisions of the Advocates
Act empowering Advocates to practice before any Tribunal / Person authorized
to take evidence and considering the provisions of the Constitution relating to
powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of Parliament and its members
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
43
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
53/182
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
54/182
Nadu, rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, Fort St. George, Chennai, and
others [W.P.No.26733 of 2014 dated 18.12.2014], this court recapitulated the broad
guidelines for punitive action for contempt. During the course of the proceedings,
the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation expressed her deep regret and apology for
the offensive and derogatory remarks made against the judiciary, more specically
the Judge concerned. She had also undertaken to give publicity to her regret and
unconditional apology and to issue press statements expressing her regrets. This
Court accordingly directed her to issue a press release and publish her regret and
unconditional apology in the newspapers, where the item appeared reporting her
earlier conduct and admonished the contemnor.
22. In the eld of education , an important question arose as to whether the Private
Unaided Educational Institutions afliated to CBSE and ICSE Schools are immune
from regulations by the State and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools(Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009. This issue was examined in the light
of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act. After having elaborately dealt
with the issue, a Division Bench held that the State Government is not totally alien
to have control over the schools and further held that appropriate Government
for all the Schools established within the territory of the State is only the State
Government, which can exercise domain over all the Schools including CBSE and
ICSE Schools and accordingly it concluded that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Private Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 are applicable to CBSEand ICSE schools in the State of Tamil Nadu. [Vide Lakshmi School v. The State of
Tamil Nadu 2012 (6) CTC 8] .
23. In M/s.Salem Textiles Limited v. The Authorized Ofcer, Phonex ARC Pvt. Ltd., 2013
(3) CTC 257, the scope of Section 13(4) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act],
came up for consideration in the light of Section 22 of “The Sic Industrial Companies
(Special Provisions) Act, 1985” [SICA]. The Full Bench held that once an action isinitiated in terms of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, by the secured creditors
representing three-fourths in value of the total amount outstanding, the proceedings
before BIFR would automatically abate, in view of the third proviso inserted by Act
54 of 2002 under Section 15(1) of SICA 1985. The secured creditors are not obliged
to seek permission of BIFR under section 22 (1) of SICA, for taking action under
Section 13(4) and for bringing to an end the proceedings before BIFR, provided
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
45
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
55/182
they represent three-fourths in value of the total amount outstanding and they take a
concerted decision to initiate action under Section 13(4) of Securitisation Act, 2002.
24. Constitutionality of Section 17-A (1), 17-A (2) and 17-A (3) of The Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, which was introduced empowering the State Governments to declare
an award as not enforceable was examined. A learned single Judge of this court
declared that Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act stands struck down so
far as the Union Territory of Puducherry is concerned since, the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Telugunadu Workcharged Employees vs. Govt of India reported in
1997 (3) ALT 492 had struck it down as unconstitutional. The court took the view
that if once it is struck down by one High Court, then, the said provision disappears
in the statute book for all States and the Central Government. The Union of India
took up the matter on appeal in Union of India v. Textile Tradesmen Association,
(2014) 5 LW 184 : (2014) 6 CTC 427. The Division Bench afrmed the view of thesingle Judge and held that the declaration made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court
that Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is unconstitutional holds good even
today for all States including the Union Territory of Puducherry. The Division Bench
further afrmed the view that Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is
unconstitutional.
25. In Solai Subramanian alias S.Subramanian v. The Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu
State Government, 2014 (4) CTC 821, applying the provisions of the Tamil NaduOfcial Language Act, 1956 [T.N. ACt 39 of 1956 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act
41 of 1976] this court has held that Tamil Language shall be used for all ofcial
purposes in the State of Tamil Nadu and further held that in the Subordinate Courts,
the proceedings shall be conducted and judgment delivered only in Tamil Language.
26. After the establishment of Madurai Bench , for the rst time, a Full Bench of ve-
Judges was constituted in J.Alex Ponseelan v. State, 2014 (2) CTC 337 to decide
whether Rule 14(b)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules,
1978, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of The Constitution of India and whether mere
involvement in the criminal case despite the acquittal would be a disqualication for
the post of Grade-II Police Constable. The Larger Bench by majority of 4:1, upheld,
the constitutionality of Rule 14(b)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate
Service Rules, 1978 and also held that a person who has been discharged in a
criminal case is also disqualied for the post.
REPORT 2011-2014
Madras High Court 46
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
56/182
27. The Dental Council of India revised B.D.S., course Regulations, 2007, prescribing
three years upper time limit for a student to successfully complete the I year B.D.S.,
University examination, from the date of admission in the course was challenged
before the Madurai Bench of this Court in Nizvy Sunil Prakash v. The Secretary
Dental Council of India (2014 (1) CTC 257) wherein, this Court, after having
analyzed the Dental Council of India Revised B.D.S., Course Regulations, 2007
and The Dentist Act, 1948, held that there was no effective consultation of the State
Governments under Section 20(2) of the Act before the issuance of the regulations,
and thus, the regulation is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
and accordingly this court struck down the said provision in the Regulations.
28. An important question as to whether The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, The
Dentists Act, 1948 and the the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, would prevail
upon the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and ResearchPuducherry Act, 2008 and vice versa came up for consideration before this court
in Miss.Aheli Bal The Director of JIPMER, Puducherry, 2014 WLR 753. The issue
was that a failed student, who could not secure the minimum marks prescribed by
the Institute, challenged the same on the ground that since she had not secured the
minimum marks prescribed under the Graduate Medical Education Regulations,
1997, by The Medical Council of India, in exercise of the power conferred under
The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, she should be declared to have passed the
said examination. After having made a scientic analysis of these relevant Centrallegislations and after having referred to the judgment in Annamalai University,
represented by its Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism
Department and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590 this court held that though
the provisions of UGC Act are binding on all Universities, whether conventional or
open , Section 24 of the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and
Research Puducherry Act, 2008 clearly and explicitly in the matter of providing
medical degrees by the JIPMER Institute, excludes the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956, the Dentist Act, 1948 and the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 fromthe provisions of the JIPMER Act for granting medical degrees and, therefore, no
provision under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and no regulation or rule framed
under the said Act prescribing any criteria for passing the M.B.B.S. Course or post
graduate medical education course will prevail over the JIPMER Act. Thus, the
court held that the candidate cannot be declared to have passed the examination
based on the minimum marks prescribed by the Regulations, 1997.
Madras High Court
REPORT 2011-2014
47
-
8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014
57/182
29. The constitutionality of Section 2(1)(o) of Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [in short,
“SARFAESI”] as well as the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India
pertaining to the classication of accounts as non-performing assets was examined
by a Division Bench in a batch of writ petitions in M/s.Deccan Chronicles Holdings
Limited v. Union of India 2014 (3) CTC 321. Since the constitutionality of SARFAESI
Act, 2002 was already upheld in Mardia Chemicals Limited and others Vs. Union
of India and others, (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Division Bench declined to reopen the
said issue as it is impermissible. The court further held that the denition of non
preforming assets under the master circular and the subsequent categorization of
a sub-standard, doubtful or loss asset would not make the provision ultra vires nor
it would make the norms as unconstitutional. The court further observed that while
exercising the power of judicial review, a good deal of latitude is permissible in case
of economic statutes. Thus, the court adopted dignied reluctance.
30. In N.V.Sankaran Alias Gnani v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2013 (1) CTC 686, Sections
2(1), 3, 4, 6 and 7 of The Tamil Nadu Dramatic Performances Act, 1954 and Rule
4 of the Tamil Nadu Dramatic Performances Rules, 1955 were challenged on the
ground that the denition of the term “objectionable performance” as dened in
Section 2(1) of the said Act is too vague to be brought within the restriction of Article
19(2) of the Constitution. This court upheld the said challenge and also held that
the power conferred on the State Government under Section 3 as well as to thePolice Commissioner / District Collectors under Section 4 is too wide and highly
discretionary. Thus, the Court held that these provisions are violative of Articles 14
and 19 of the Constitution.
31. The employees working in religious institutions governed by the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 made a claim for gratuity under
“The Payment