Important Judgments of Madras High Court (2022) - Legal Bites Year Update
Legal Bites brings you a roundup of Important Judgments of the Madras High Court (2022), which played a significant role.
Legal Bites brings you a roundup of Important decisions of the Madras High Court (2022), which played a significant role. It will help the readers to remember all legal and current updates of 2022 pertaining to the Madras High Court in the most efficient and easy way.
Important Judgments of Madras High Court (2022) - Legal Bites Year Update
1. Right To Privacy Includes the Right To Relax And The Same Can’t Be Curbed, Fearing a Breach of Morality
On 4th January 2022, Madras High Court, in the case Payel Biswas v. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City and Ors, Madras High Court has examined a recent single judge bench ruling allowing the installation of CCTV cameras inside Spa and Massage Centers as it considers a writ petition filed for obtaining a "No Objection Certificate" from the Police for operating a cross-massage centre.
The court made it quite apparent that the mere suspicion of a moral transgression cannot serve as a justification for restricting the right to unwind, which is integral to the right to privacy. The single judge bench cited the significant ruling in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 10 SCC 1, and stated that "constitutional morality shall outweigh popular morality."
2. The Madras High Court dismisses SpiceJet v. Credit Suisse AG's appeal against the airline's admission of winding up
On 10th January, Madras High Court, in the case SpiceJet Limited v. Credit Suisse AG, SpiceJet's appeal against a single-judge bench ruling to admit it's winding up on Credit Suisse AG's Company Petition was denied by the Madras High Court.
A Division Bench of Justices Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup and Paresh Upadhyay noted in the order that the Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of in accordance with the dismissal of the Original Second Appeals after carefully listening to the attorneys representing SpiceJet and Credit Suisse. Since the impugned judgement's implementation has now been stayed, the bench decided to extend the application of the stay order until January 28 in order to provide the appellant with a chance to appeal to the Supreme Court. The court's issues and the appellant airlines' complaints related to purported mistakes in the single-judge bench ruling did the following:
(i) the winding-up petition's admission, filed under the provisions of Sections 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act of 1956; and
(ii) the appointment of the High Court of Madras' Official Liquidator as Provisional Liquidator.
3. Madras High Court Rules Against Women's Reservation Over 50% in Elections for the City of Chennai
On 11th January, in the case R. Parthiban v. The Chief Secretary & Ors., Madras High Court ruled that reservation can only be based on the total number of seats in the Municipality and not on Zonal-wise demarcation in response to a complaint against a reservation of more than 50% for women in the Greater Chennai Municipal Corporation.
The 2019 Government Notification that allocated 105 seats for women from Scheduled Castes and another 16 seats for women from 89 other wards out of 200 wards has been overturned by the court of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu.
4. Championships’ online registration system and positions of importance in organisations only open to athletes: The Madras High Court has issued instructions to prevent favouritism and nepotism.
On 19th January in the case S. Nithya v. The Secretary to the Union of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports & Ors. The Madras High Court has issued directives to streamline the operation of sports organisations, associations, national sports federations, and its state units, as well as the national Olympic association, among other organisations. These directives mandate an online registration system at all levels and specify the qualifications of officials in charge of such associations and federations.
A sportswoman's complaint of favouritism and nepotism by the Tamil Nadu Athletics Association was being heard by a single-judge panel led by Justice R. Mahadevan. The Madras High Court has mandated that all district, state, and national sports championships, contests, meets, and events establish an online registration system, similar to the one used in the Federation Cup Athletics Championships right away. The single-judge bench has ordered that only athletes may hold the positions of President, Vice President, and Secretary of any sports Association/Organisation/NSFs and its State Units, as well as other key positions within such organisations.
5. Prisoner May Seek For "Specific Purpose," Such As Infertility Treatment, But Has No Fundamental Right To A Conjugal Relationship As A Course: HC Madras.
On 20th January, in Meharaj v. The State Rep By Its Secretary & Ors., a pertinent decision, the Madras High Court addressed the questions of whether it would be against Article 21 to deny a convicted prisoner the right to marry and whether the state could be ordered to take into account the convict's request for an emergency or regular leave for the aforementioned purpose.
Since this denial also indirectly restricts the ability of their spouses to enjoy conjugal rights, the Madras High Court has considered whether or not to treat a prisoner's or convict's conjugal rights as a fundamental right, and if so, whether or not they would be unconditional or subject to other limitations. A three-judge bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Justice PD Audikesavalu, and Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana responded positively to a question from the Division Bench of the High Court regarding the dilemma that the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, does not specifically provide for obtaining leave to have a conjugal relationship with the spouse.
According to the bench, the petitioner's request for infertility treatment while the offender and his or her spouse are childless constitutes an "exceptional reason" under Rule 20 (vii) of the 1982 Rules. The court did clarify, however, that the couple's request for a leave of absence for infertility treatment would not have qualified as an "exceptional cause" if they already had a child together. The court further stated that the same "exceptional reason" cannot be used repeatedly by a criminal or prisoner to request leave.
6. Madras HC Quashes FIR Over Agitation To Shift TASMAC Shop After Written Complaint By Public Servant Mandatory For Taking Cognizance of Offence Under Section 188 IPC.
On 20th January, in Palaniyappan and Ors v. State and Ors, a recent FIR filed against protesters who gathered in front of a TASMAC Shop in 2017 and requested that it be moved for the sake of the younger generation was recently overturned by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
Justice K. Murali Shankar quashed the FIR filed as a result of the Village Administrative Official's complaint and placed on the Judicial Magistrate's file after observing that the prosecution had failed to show that the elements of the offences for which they were booked were present. The court noted its findings that Section 195 Cr.P.C. prohibits taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 I.P.C., except on a written complaint given by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. The court did this by relying on the Supreme Court decision in C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu (2010).
The court noted that the FIR was filed against 23 people, including 14 women, without taking into account the unambiguous prohibition on declaring an offence in violation of Section 188 I.P.C. without filing a complaint, as provided for in Section 195 Cr.P.C.
7. Without authenticating original civil court records, Pondicherry courts are unable to issue orders under the French Civil Code or otherwise. High Court of Madras.
On 24th January, the Madras High Court in Gnanaloussany Valmy v. The Registrar of Marriages noted that courts cannot pass orders without proper inquiry and by solely relying upon the copies of the documents presented by the litigants. The Madras High Court criticised an additional sub-court in Pondicherry for issuing directions on making alterations in the marriage register without verifying the original documents.
An appeal by a French citizen to have her name and her parents' names changed in the marriage registry was being heard by the single-judge bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam. She said that because she didn't speak English well, she didn't catch the mistake until her daughter's citizenship application was submitted.
According to the case's facts and circumstances, extramarital relations may qualify as "mental cruelty" under section 498(A) of the IPC: Madras High Court.
In a significant decision on 30th January, the Madras High Court noted that extramarital relationships might result in severe mental trauma and mental health problems that have substantial ramifications for matrimony. This would constitute mental cruelty under Section 498(A) IPC.
However, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarty emphasised that the case's facts and circumstances must be taken into consideration while determining whether a behaviour constituted cruelty. The observation was made as evidence for a husband's conviction for having an adulterous relationship with a different lady while his marriage to the respondent's wife was still legally binding. In its ruling, the Bench remarked that the evidence in the case shows there was an illicit relationship that had deep roots in the marriage and had a negative impact on the wife's mental health. The wife ultimately left the marital home as a result of this.
8. According to the case's facts and circumstances, extramarital relations may qualify as "mental cruelty" under section 498(A) of the IPC: Madras High Court.
In a significant decision on 30th January, the Madras High Court noted that extramarital relationships might result in severe mental trauma and mental health problems that have substantial ramifications for matrimony. This would constitute mental cruelty under Section 498(A) IPC.
However, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarty emphasised that the case's facts and circumstances must be taken into consideration while determining whether a behaviour constituted cruelty. The observation was made as evidence for a husband's conviction for having an adulterous relationship with a different lady while his marriage to the respondent's wife was still legally binding. In its ruling, the Bench remarked that the evidence in the case shows there was an illicit relationship that had deep roots in the marriage and had a negative impact on the wife's mental health. The wife ultimately left the marital home as a result of this.
9. Madras High Court: 90% of police officers are corrupt and incapable; the remainder cannot complete all investigations; it is time to sensitise the force.
On 31st January, the Madras High Court in S. Vasanthi v. M. Baggyalakshmi, Inspector of Police, noted that the police force is now operating with 90% corrupt officials in a contempt suit filed against a Police Inspector charging intentional violation of the court order.
According to Justice P. Velmurugan, the Department is also troubled by police officers who lack the necessary knowledge to conduct an inquiry. Even though the judge claims that just 10% of the cops are "honest and capable," they cannot complete the entire inquiry on their own. The investigation officer's inability cannot be interpreted as willful disobedience of the court's order, despite the fact that the court finds her competence to be inadequate despite the fact that she conducted the investigation within the scope of her authority. Unfortunately, as of right now, only 10% of the police force is honest and capable, and 90% of the officers are corrupt. In addition, many of the officers lack the necessary skills to conduct investigations. Only 10% of the officials can complete the probe.
10. Fundamental obligations still need to be upheld in full; the government must establish a system that makes citizens' obligations enforceable.
On 11th February, the Madras High Court in the case M.Muthumadasamy v. The Accountant General and another, made a significant statement, stating that it is past time for the Constitutional Courts to ensure that rights and obligations are upheld equally. The Government should develop a transparent mechanism that makes obligations enforceable, the Court emphasised.
The Court also emphasised in its ruling that carrying out one's obligations is a fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution and that if one's obligations aren't carried out, an imbalance would develop that will undermine democratic values.
11. Transgender individuals who self-identify as females should be given special consideration rather than being included in the women's quota
On 2nd March, according to the Madras High Court in Saratha v. Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, it is unconstitutional to include transgender people who self-identified as women in the women's quota. The Court further ruled that discrimination between transgender people who identify as "males" and "females" is prohibited.
The Court in Saratha v. Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, ruled that the Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) had violated Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Indian Constitution by combining the TGs who had chosen the female category with the positions designated for women. The Court also ruled that it is against Articles 14 and 16(1) and unlawful to place candidates who identify as transgender men on an equal footing with candidates from other categories without making any type of reservation for them. The Court determined that such behaviour violates the Supreme Court's directive to grant transgender people preference in public employment in its NALSA verdict.
12. Devotees Should Dress Properly To Enter Temples; Temples With Dress Codes May Fix Visible Sign Boards
On 3rd March the Madras High Court in the case Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government & Ors, said that devotees are expected to enter the temple premises in proper dress code in response to a request for a dress code to be required for access into temples. The Court did rule, however, that it could not give a blanket order for all temples to post signboards stating the clothing code, as sought by the petitioner. The chief justice and justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy's division bench stated that the judiciary cannot "push" its beliefs on society.
The bench further stated that if a particular temple has a dress code for admittance, it may fix signboards that are clearly visible to guarantee that the code is obeyed and may enact regulations to that end.
13. According to the Madras High Court, POCSO Act | bar u/s 33(5) to recall a minor victim is not Applicable after her attaining a majority
On 7th March, the Madras High Court in S. Ganeshan v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, ruled that once a victim reaches the age of majority, the POCSO Act's prohibition against recalling a child (minor victim) is no longer in effect.
While accepting the petitioner's argument, the accused's Justice A.D. Jagdish Chandra ruled that the victim is now 21 years old and will no longer meet the criteria for being considered a "minor" under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, 2012. Only that the juvenile witness cannot be called to testify in court more than once is required by Section 33(5) of the Act. The court also cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd. (2017), noting that it is required by Section 311 CrpC for a court to call witnesses back for additional cross-examination if their testimony appears to be crucial to a fair resolution of the case. The court further emphasised that the right of the accused must be balanced with the child's right under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act.
14. The Madras High Court orders the DGP to ensure that CCTV cameras in police stations are operating properly, saying that footage "must be stored for at least a year."
On 11th March, the Police Department is not outfitted with CCTV Cameras to keep the footage for at least a year, according to Madras High Court in the case R.R Saravana Balagursamy v. The Superintendent of Police and Ors, despite repeated directions from the Supreme Court and High Courts. The objective of installing cameras is defeated in this situation. The court also recommended locations for storage of the CCTV footage for at least a year. In addition, Justice S.M. Subramaniam said that other writ petitions have been filed calling for the taking of action against public employees, including police officials, and that a resolution should be found.
15. Public employees shouldn't use personal mobile devices in the workplace: Government must create regulations, Madras High Court orders
On 14th March the Madras High Court in D.S. Radhika v. The State Represented By Secretary to Government & Ors, criticised public employees who unduly use their mobile phones and cameras while at work and ordered the government to create measures in accordance with the 1973 Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules.
A Superintendent of the Tiruchirapalli Regional Workshop (Health) presented a request to the Madurai Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam, asking for a directive to restore her suspension and overturn the decision issued by the Director of the Tamil Nadu State Health Transport Department.
The court questioned whether the employees are carrying out their duties and obligations in accordance with what is expected of them given that the respondent state authorities claimed that the majority of public employees use mobile phones and cameras in government offices. By receiving a large salary paid for by taxpayer money, they are undoubtedly committing the biggest offence against the public if such indiscretion and wrongdoing are permitted to continue. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that public employees do not wander around the office using mobile phones during business hours, and this behaviour must be governed in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973, the court emphasised in its order.
16. Mother Nature is now recognised by the Madras High Court as a living being with all the rights, obligations, and liabilities of a living person
On 19th April in the case of A. Periyakaruppan v. The Principle Secretary to Government and Another, in order to preserve and conserve them, the Madras High Court invoked the "parens patriae jurisdiction" and declared "Mother Nature" to be a "Living Being" with a legal entity, legal person, juristic person, juridical person, moral person, and artificial person with the status of a legal person.
In order to sustain its position and advance its health and wellness, nature must have fundamental rights, legal rights, and constitutional rights for its life, safety, sustenance, and resurrection. Additionally, the court ordered both the state and federal governments to take the necessary actions to save the planet in every manner possible.
17. State Order: Madras High Court Bans Two-Finger Test On Rape Victims Effective Right Away
On 21st April, the Madras High Court in the case Rajiv Gandhi v. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, ordered the State Government to immediately outlaw the use of the two-finger test on victims of sexual offences. The bench gave this instruction after observing that, despite a ruling by the Supreme Court that it infringes on the rights of rape survivors to privacy, physical and mental integrity, and dignity, the two-finger test is still frequently used in cases involving sexual offences, particularly those involving minor victims.
The POCSO Act's conviction and punishment decision was the subject of an appeal brought before the court under Section 374(2) CrPC. Rajivgandhi, the accused, was sentenced to life in prison, which would be until the end of his life, for offences under Section 5(l) read with Section 6(1) of the POCSO Act, along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and 3 months of simple imprisonment in default. He was also sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment for an offence under Section 363 of the IPC and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default.
18. The Madras High Court requests that schools develop an anti-sexual harassment policy and offer students a reporting and redressal mechanism
On 17th November, the Madras High Court, A Veronica Mary v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, recently gave the State government instructions for proper implementation of the law and policies set against sexual abuse of children after observing that sexual harassment in educational institutions continues to go unaddressed.
The school education department was instructed to work with the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights to ensure that an internal complaints committee is established in the schools as required by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, by the division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad.
Additionally, the court ruled that schools could draught an anti-sexual harassment policy and give it to both teachers and students. The court stressed the need to ensure that every school has a procedure for reporting and redress in place.
19. The Madras High Court has instructed the TN HR & CE Dept to forbid the use of mobile phones inside temples in order to protect the sanctity
On 2nd December, the Madras High Court M Seetharaman v. The Commissioner HR & CE and another, noted that although Article 25 of the constitution guarantees everyone the right to practise their religion without hindrance, such freedom is subject to regulations inside the temple grounds when ordering the Tamil Nadu Government to impose restrictions against using mobile phones inside temple premises in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The Madurai bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and Sathya Narayana Prasad noted that the concerned temple officials can control the use of mobile phones and cameras inside the temple which diverts the attention of the pilgrims. The court noted that the Trustees or authority-in-charge of a temple were empowered to impose regulations for the maintenance of order and decorum of the temple under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act 1947. The court noted that the Trustees or authority-in-charge of a temple were empowered to impose regulations for the maintenance of order and decorum of the temple under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act 1947. In addition to the rules established by the trustee or authority as the case may be, the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act of 1947 also specifies a code of conduct for the maintenance of order and decorum in the temple.
20. PIL against the requirement for Aadhaar authentication with an electricity connection is dismissed by the Madras High Court
On 21st December, in the case, ML Ravi v. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government and another, a Public Interest Litigation against a government order allowing Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (Tangedco) to require the linking of an Aadhaar number with an electricity consumption consumer billing number in order to receive certain services was dismissed by the Madras High Court on Wednesday.
The petition was dismissed by the acting chief justice's bench and justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, who noted that it lacked merit. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in KS Puttaswamy, which determined that welfare programmes whose benefits, subsidies, or services are offered to intended recipients might require Adhaar verification.
Important Links
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams