The Madras High Court has set aside a series of preventive detention orders passed under the Goondas Act against the accused in the Kallakurichi hooch tragedy. A Division Bench, comprising Justices Subramaniam and M Jothiraman, ruled on Monday that such detention curtails the fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under the Constitution.

The court emphasised that the power to invoke preventive detention laws must be exercised sparingly to avoid misuse or complaints. The Kallakurichi Hooch tragedy, which occurred in June 2024, resulted in the deaths of 68 people and caused serious health issues for approximately 161 others, including loss of vision among several survivors. The accused were arrested shortly after the incident. The court observed that the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers, and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (commonly referred to as the Goondas Act) was invoked by the Collector only in August 2024, two months after the arrests.

Justice Subramaniam, who authored the verdict, pointed out that the delay in invoking the Act was unjustified. Additionally, the court highlighted that some of the accused, reportedly involved in supplying methanol and other harmful ingredients, were illiterate or did not understand Tamil. Despite this, the documents relied upon by the Collector to pass the detention orders were not translated into languages understood by the detainees. The Bench noted that the failure to provide translated documents violated the detainees’ rights to make an effective representation against the detention orders.

This procedural lapse and the prolonged delay in invoking the Act led the court to quash the detention orders. The Division Bench also noted that the accused had already spent more than six months in custody, with most not granted bail. The court advised the investigating agencies to oppose bail pleas, if necessary, rather than continuing with preventive detention.

–IANS

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Hooch Tragedy: Madras HC Nixes Preventive Detention Orders Against Accused Under Goondas Act appeared first on The Commune.

The Madras High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for the constitution of a special bench to hear cases related to YouTubers, journalists and other activists. The first division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Acting Chief Justice D. Krishnakumar and Justice P.B. Balaji dismissed the PIL petition filed by S. Muralidharan.

The court while dismissing the petition on Saturday held that no person had the right to invoke the writ jurisdiction and seek a direction to constitute a special bench. “The relief sought in the PIL has the undertones of commanding a direction from a Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice on the judicial side to the Chief Justice on the administrative side to constitute a special bench,” the bench observed. The petitioner, S. Muraleedharan, who argued the case in person, claimed that the state government had been gagging journalists, particularly YouTubers, who act as whistleblowers and expose scams committed by those in power. He cited the cases booked against ‘Savukku’ Shankar and others. The petitioner told the court that social media adds strength to the fourth pillar of democracy even though its content and vocabulary could be “toxic” at times. He prayed for a direction to constitute a special bench to fast-track the hearing of cases related to journalists, YouTubers, and other activists.

However, senior counsel P.M. Subramaniam, representing the High Court’s Registrar General, said the Chief Justice was the master of the roster who had the prerogative to constitute benches and allocate portfolios on the administrative side. No such judicial direction could be issued to them. Based on the submission by the Senior Counsel, Subramanian, Division Bench said a Chief Justice enjoys the special status of being the first among the equals (all other judges) on the judicial side of a High Court but having the entire control of the High Court on the administrative side.

“No person has a right to invoke the writ jurisdiction seeking a direction to constitute a Special Bench. It is for the Chief Justice to consider the petitioner’s grievance on the administrative side, and the same can neither be espoused nor redressed by way of a public interest litigation,” the bench said. The court observed that entertaining cases of the present nature would pave the way for other sections of the society too to approach the court for the constitution of special benches. “Encouraging litigations of this nature will also lead to the litigant choosing who should decide their case,” the bench said. “It is a well-settled proposition of law that public interest litigation is a crucial tool for promoting social justice and holding authorities accountable. However, the instant petition can be labelled as a waste of time as it lacks specific details or particulars regarding the grievance sought to be addressed,” it added.

–IANS

Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Madras HC Dismisses PIL To Constitute Special Bench To Hear Cases Of YouTubers, Journalists & Activists appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court recently dismissed petitions challenging the President’s order appointing advocate L Victoria Gowri as an additional judge of the Madras Hight Court on the recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium. There have been allegations against her elevation from many corners especially from the leftist propaganda outfits which has peddled false narrative about alleged role of judiciary in being complacent with the government in elevating a person having political affiliation with the ruling party. It was alleged that Gowri had made some hate speeches against minority communities in the past and was affiliated to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

While the case was being heard by the Supreme Court, the Centre had already notified her appointment, and Gowri was administered the oath of office by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court however, observed that the collegium would have taken all material against Gowri before recommending her name.

Both the government, who has suggested reform to the system of appointment of judges and the judiciary, who want to preserve the current system of appointment, are caught in the firing line of the ‘Leftist’ propogandist who attacks both the institutions just because their desired candidates aren’t elevated.

These leftist and secular Cabal have a problem with Victoria Gowri because of her ideological and political affiliations. They wouldn’t have gone ballast had the recommended judge belonged to their ilk.

It should be noted that past political links are no bar for becoming a judge and the controversy surround elevation of Victoria Gowri has to be seen as another instance of attack on the institutions of the state by the ‘Left-Liberal’ lobby.

Before breaking down the propaganda against the appointment we must break down how the judges are appointed.

The Appointment Process

In case of High Court Article 217 (2) of the Constitution of India states that:

A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and —
(a) has for at least 10 years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or
(b) has for at least 10 years been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such courts in succession.

Based on these parameters appointment is made as per the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) a playbook for appointment of judges between the government and the judiciary. It prescribes the mechanism and timeline for appointment of High Court Judges. The proposal to fill up a vacancy should be initiated by the Chief Justice of the High Court and reach the law minister through the governor. The Chief Justice of the High Court will have to indicate if the candidate is associated with any political party, if they have held any organizational or elective office. A system of full disclosure method is followed ensuring transparency to the appointment process.

The Union Law Minister, through government agencies such as Intelligence Bureau, will seek reports on the candidate and send the same to the Chief Justice of India. The Chief Justice of India will obtain views of the Judge(s) of the Supreme Court who are conversant with the state of affairs of the particular High Court.

The Supreme Court Collegium, after gathering the views, will send its recommendation to the Union Law Minister. The Law Minister may send back the names for reconsideration to the Chief Justice of India with specific reasons or put up the file to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister ultimately advises the President for the appointment. While the Constitution of India and the MoP speak of eligibility and procedure, it does not mention that members having political affiliations should not be made judges. Thus, it is clear that there is no legal bar on people with political affiliations becoming judges. 

So, what is the problem now? Is it the first time a person with political affiliation is elevated to judiciary? Or the controversy is just because Victoria Gowri had affiliation to BJP?

Politically Affiliated Judges

Below is a list of judges who were politicians prior to or after their appointment.

Justice Baharul Islam was a member of the Congress party. He resigned from the Rajya Sabha to become a judge of the Gauhati High Court. After he retired as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court, he was recalled and made a Judge of the Supreme Court. He later resigned from the Supreme Court to contest elections and then became a Rajya Sabha member again.

Justice MC Chagla, a legendary judge of the Bombay High Court, formed his own party Muslim Nationalist Party. In 1948, he became Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and remained in that position till 1958. After his stint as a judge, he became the education minister from 1963 to 1966 and the external affairs minister till September 1967. 

Justice Hidayatullah was the Chief Justice of India from 1968 to 16 December 1970. He served as the vice president of India for a brief while in 1969 when President Dr Zakir Hussain died. In 1978, he was elected vice president unopposed and served from 31 August 1979 to 30 August 1984.

Justice VR Krishna Iyer became a Supreme Court judge after serving as a minister in Kerala’s Communist Party government. Justice Iyer’s political affiliations and the judgments he had delivered are spoken of even today. In fact, prominent members of the bar, including Soli Sorabjee, had protested Justice Iyer’s appointment to the Supreme Court.

https://twitter.com/governorswaraj/status/1621334483202113537

Then from Tamil Nadu itself there are many instances. Supreme Court Justice Ratnavel Pandian was the former DMK district secretary. Supreme Court Justice Sathasivam was an employee of AIADMK. High Court Judge Chanduru worked as a member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).

Speaking of character of judges, it is important to elaborate on the allegations levelled against Justice Chandru. 

Many would’ve seen and heard about the film Jai Bhim starring actor Suriya, which is based on a custodial violence case handled by Justice Chandru when he was an advocate. In the movie, Justice Chandru has been extolled as a real life hero who fought for the marginalized. However, real life accounts of the case reveal otherwise.

Apparently, Chandru tried to bargain a deal with Anthony Samy (the police officer guilty of beating the ST man to death) for ₹5 lakhs, to ensure that he is not found guilty in the case. However, as Anthony Samy could not give more than ₹2 lakhs, they decided to trap him in the case entirely.  This expose has come from Anthony Samy’s very own nephew (sister’s son).

Post his retirement, Justice Chandru has positioned himself as a Dravidian Stockist supporting the DMK. He once made a casteist and misogynist comment against Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman referring to her Brahmin and woman identity.

One shudders to think the kind of justice that Chandru’s pen would have dispensed when he was a judge. But these are subjects the ‘Left-Liberal’ propaganda outfits tend to not talk about.

The Unspoken Spoke Side of Victoria Gowri

Let’s use the same trope which the leftists use to justify the wrongdoings of their ideologues and other controversial episodes – context.

The charges of ‘hate speeches’ against Victoria Gowri has to be seen in the context of her socio-political environment. Victoria Gowri was born and brought up in Kanyakumari, a hotbed of Christian evangelical groups indulging in forced religious conversion. Her formative years have been shaped by the bloody Mandaikadu riots which broke out when fanatic Christians objected to Hindus celebrating their festival and performing rituals in the sea. Even the Venugopal Commission which made a thorough enquiry into the communal riots and recommended a ban on forcible conversions. So, it is but natural for her to voice her concerns about forced religious conversions.

In her early years, she had immersed herself in social work through Seva Bharati (1999-2004) and another NGO ‘Mangayar Mangalam’ (MM, Women Welfare 2004 to 2010). She had worked extensively with Kani community — a forest tribe in the western ghats of Kanyakumari district. Through MM she conducted more than 500 women empowerment camps by working along with women police stations. When Cyclone Okhi inflicted a heavy damage on Kanyakumari, she channelled relief efforts to the needy using her connections. Along with the trustees of the Adivasi People’s Movement, she organised donation drives for the rebuilding of the houses.

In her legal profession, she has handled cases involving Christian institutions. She dealt with the election dispute cases of Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church before High Court. She was even awarded the best lawyer award for the year 2012-2013, by the St Francis Engineering College, (Tirunelveli district of Roman Catholic Diocese).

As for her political affiliation, she left political work to pursue her legal profession years back. For the kind attention of leftists, the BJP is not a banned outfit and being part of it is not a crime. BJP is a party recognized by Election Commission of India just like the Congress or DMK. If a DMK or Communist worker can become a judge, so can a BJP worker.

So, legally and morally there is nothing wrong in the elevation of Victoria Gowri.

The reason for the leftist cabal to oppose Victoria Gowri is that she isn’t one of them and would be a hindrance in using the judiciary for their ulterior motives.

Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post The Curious Case Of Victoria Gowri And The Hypocrisy Of Leftists appeared first on The Commune.

On Monday, the Madras High Court refused to discharge DMK leader and Tamil Nadu Electricity and Prohibition, Excise Minister, V Senthil Balaji from a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in 2021, under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Justice V Sivagnanam upheld the ED proceedings while dismissing a petition from Senthil Balaji to discharge him from the case, which arose out of a job racketing scam, in 2021. A fresh inquiry has been ordered. The judge also turned down a petition to quash the FIR filed by another accused in the case. Instead, The court has ordered a fresh examination into the allegations leveled against the minister and the co-accused in two more complaints.

Trouble mounts For DMK minister Senthil Balaji, a close confidante of Tamil Nadu CM Stalin, as a Recruitment Scam from his time with the AIDMK, comes back to haunt him.
Back in September,
the current DMK minister for Tamil Nadu Electricity, Prohibition and Excise, Senthil Balaji, suffered a setback when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of restoring a quashed criminal case against him in a recruitment scam pertaining to his tenure as Transport Minister between 2011 and 2014 in the former AIDMK government led by late CM J.Jayalalithaa.

He had begun his political career in his early 20s and had mostly associated himself with the DMK’s rival, the AIDMK. Senthil Balaji, who had earlier enjoyed the proximity to AIDMK leader and ex-CM, Jayalalitha and her close confidante Sasikala, is a powerful political organizer in the Western districts of Tamil Nadu. During his tenure as Transport Minister in the AIADMK government led by the late J Jayalalithaa from 2011 to 2015, there were several complaints filed against him, alleging that he had received substantial bribe money from multiple people in exchange for appointing them as drivers and conductors in Transportation Corporations.

He joined the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), in the presence of Party President M. K. Stalin on 14 December 2018. Soon after joining the party, he was offered the post of District Secretary and was later announced as the DMK candidate for the Aravakurichi constituency. He was elected as an MLA on 23 May 2019 for the fourth time. He is reported to enjoy a close relationship with DMK leader and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, M K Stalin.

Justice Sivagnanam stated that the special court for cases against MPs/MLAs, would be free to exercise power under Section 216 of the CrPC (adding/altering charges), if the State Investigating Officer is reluctant to conduct a thorough inquiry into the allegations of the case.

“On completion of the investigation, if the Investigating Officer makes out a case for cognizance of offense against the accused persons, then he shall provide the relevant materials and documents to the ED to enable it to proceed with the money laundering offense”, the judge stated in his order.

Three FIRs were filed by the Central Crime Branch (CCB) of the Chennai City Police against him in connection with these allegations, which resulted in charge sheets being filed against him, and those charge sheets were pending before a special court for the trial of criminal cases involving MPs and MLAs.

Since the charge sheets revealed the commission of a scheduled offense under the PML Act ( Money Laundering) rather than the IPC, the ED registered the current case against Senthil Balaji and others in July 2021 and launched an investigation into the matter.

Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Madras HC Refuses To Discharge DMK Minister Senthil Balaji From Job Racket Case Filed By ED appeared first on The Commune.

The Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) on Friday told the Madras High Court (HC) that an ‘Audit manual’ is in the works in order to verify temple properties. The HR&CE is grappling with a number of pending cases regarding various issues including temple property encroachments, smelting of gold, collection of arrears and appointment of trustees.

Advocate D. Chandrasekaran, appearing for the temples, filed the petition before a special bench comprising Justices R. Mahadevan and P. D. Adikesavalu. Appearing in court via video conferencing, HR&CE commissioner J. Kumaragurubaran said the audit of the temple properties was currently being carried out by the Finance Department officials and he had been appointed as the Chairman of the Board of Officers with the rank of Deputy Secretary of the Department. The bench gave the commissioner three weeks to put in court the details of the audit mechanism.

Regarding the collection of rent arrears to be paid to the department, the Commissioner said that steps have been taken to collect  ₹540 crore at the rate of ₹2,390 crore per annum and at present, the target is set at ₹2 crore to ₹3 crore. 

Currently, he said, rent is coming through 99,000 properties. Efforts are underway to lease another three lakh properties. Advocate General R Shanmugasundaram told the bench that district committees have been set up in all the districts and trustees will be appointed soon. The bench wanted him to submit a schedule for the appointment of trustees as per the provisions. 

(With inputs from Kathir News)

Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Audit Manual in the works for temple properties”: HR&CE tells Madras HC appeared first on The Commune.

The Madras High Court has questioned the Tamil Nadu government as to why it should not withhold the salaries of HR&CE officials who do not take action against those who encroach land belonging to the temples. This comes in the light of lands belonging to the Trisulanathar Temple located in Trisulam, Chennai, have been encroached. 

A case was filed in the Madras High Court seeking immediate recovery of temple lands from the encroachers. The case came up for hearing on February 3 before Chief Justice Muneeswar Nath Bandari and Justice PD Adikesavalu. The judges then strongly condemned the actions of the Temple’s officials.

He also cited the failure of the authorities, to enforce various orders issued by the judges to immediately cut off the power supply to the buildings encroached and built upon the the temple lands. They also condemned that the temple authorities did not take proper action to recover the temple property, and rather were acting in compliance with the encroachers. The judges then asked the HR&CE to withhold the salaries of the officials, who do not do their duty properly.

(With inputs from Kathir News)

Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Why don’t you withhold salaries of officials for inaction?” Madras HC asks HR&CE appeared first on The Commune.

A petition has been filed in the Madras High Court asking for a proper framework for regulating the temples built on purampokku land. The petition was filed by the Spokesperson of the Hindu Munnani, D Ilango.

The petition filed by Ilango read, “16 temples have been demolished since the DMK formed the government. Many of these 16 temples are more than a hundred years old. On behalf of the HR&CE department, it is being said that the temples were demolished for renovating the old temples, and making them new. Illegal constructions, encroachment of water bodies, etc. are some reasons cited for the destruction of temple, under the Disaster Management Act, 2006.

There have been reports that temples built on Poramboke land are being demolished without prior notice. However, places of worship that belong to minority religions, have not been demolished, even if they’re encroaching land, Hindu activists allege. Many lands have belonging to the HR&CE, have been provided to encroachers.

“Therefore, there should be a ban on demolishing temples that have encroached land, without giving prior notice. Also, the court should direct for a proper framework regulating these temples, and providing them with a replacement.”, the petition read.

The post Petition filed in Madras HC asking for ban on demolition of temples appeared first on The Commune.

After the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed an amendment to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 that would punish those who encroach Temple properties as a non-bailable and cognizable offense, The Madras High Court on Wednesday (15 September) directed Tamil Nadu’s Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department to issue a public notification calling upon the encroachers of temple properties across the state to voluntarily surrender the lands within a stipulated period of time.

The court was very specific in its direction to the HR&CE Department and made it very clear that it must specifically mention in the notification that “if the encroachers do not voluntarily surrender the temple properties within the time frame stipulated, criminal proceedings will be taken against them including under the Goondas Act.”

Justice S Subramanian, in the order, said: “The respondent (state government and HR&CE Department and DGP) shall not hesitate to invoke the Goondas Act against such professional land grabbers and persons involved in encroachment and illegal activities in respect of the temple properties at large for personal and unjust gains.”

The court also ordered the constitution of a special cell that will be dedicated to retrieving the encroached temple properties.

Justice Subramanian said that only officers with impeccable integrity and devotion to duty be made part of the cell and their number be displayed prominently in all the temples in the state as well as on the notice boards of HR&CE Department offices.

This, the court felt will ensure that people interested in protecting temple lands can lodge complaints because they will have more confidence and the court observed that encroachment of temple properties is a crime against the society at large along with misappropriation of temple funds and such offenders prosecuted by the state.

The court also made it very clear that the active participation of HR&CE officials cannot be overruled out called it a dereliction of duty to be viewed seriously and all appropriate action must be taken against them.

The court said that acts of “Fences eating the Crop” should be dealt with sternly and it was the duty of the courts also to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims of misappropriation.

To ensure propriety is maintained, Advocate General R.Shanmugasundaram said details of temple properties must be uploaded by the HR&CE Department website and the department had engaged 142 surveyors and 50 rover equipment to earmark the boundaries of temple lands.

Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Slap Goondas Act on Temple Land Encroachers: Madras HC to TN Govt appeared first on The Commune.

The Madras high court observed on Tuesday that the Tamil Nadu government cannot form a committee to analyze the effect of NEET on MBBS aspirants from socially backward classes without the Supreme Court’s permission.

The Madras High Court issued a notice to the Tamil Nadu government based on a petition filed by BJP state general secretary Karu Nagarajan. The plea claims that the 9-member committee formed by the TN Government, calling it unconstitutional, illegal, unfair, and without legal justification.

While hearing the plea, the court posed a series of questions to the Tamil Nadu government over its decision to set up a committee to look into the impact of NEET, asking if it had obtained the permission of the Supreme Court as forming a committee on NEET will be a violation of Supreme Court’s ruling.

Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram, who appeared on behalf of the Tamil Nadu government, has submitted that it was a policy decision taken by the government. He added that the policy decision was backed by the manifesto and the people’s demand.

“Maybe. But if it is contrary to the Supreme Court order, then it cannot be permitted,” the bench said before adjourning the matter to July 5.

Meanwhile, opposition parties and the general public have criticized the DMK government for interfering with student’s lives by instilling false hope.

Tamil Nadu BJP Spokesperson SG Suryah criticized the DMK government for giving false hope to Tamil Nadu students.

CM #MKStalin led TN Govt. received a blow as Madras High Court observed that the TN Govt. cannot constitute a Committee to go into the impact of NEET on MBBS aspirants without the leave of the Supreme Court.

Will #DMK at least now stop fooling the students with false promises?

— Dr.SG Suryah (@SuryahSG) June 29, 2021

ஒவ்வொரு தனியார் கல்லூரிக்கும் ஒரு தேர்வு என்று இல்லாமல் ஒரே தேர்வு மூலம் நமது மாணவர்களை தேசம் முழுவதும் உள்ள அனைத்து கல்லூரிகளுக்கும் தகுதி பெற வைக்கும் நீட் தான் சமூக நீதி! pic.twitter.com/sTKVANZYRw

— Fervid Indian (@FervidIndian) June 29, 2021

Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Madras High Court: TN govt cannot form committee on NEET without Supreme Court’s permission appeared first on The Commune.

The Madras High Court has allowed Tamil Nadu Speaker Appavu to withdraw the ongoing corruption cases against former ministers SP Velumani and R Kamaraj and dismissed the cases.

Appavu, a member of the DMK and current Speaker of Tamil Nadu Assembly, had filed a case in Madras high court, a few months ago, against then Minister for Municipal Administration SP Velumani for inflating the price of 23,72,412 LED bulb purchased to be installed across Tamil Nadu.

Similarly, he filed a case against then-Food Minister Kamaraj, accusing him of misappropriating additional food grains allotted by the central government to a rice mill linked to his close relative.

Both these cases were filed in his capacity as former MLA of DMK.

Last February, when the cases were heard before a bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamurthy, an advocate for Appavu told the judges that the case against SP Velumani had been referred to the Lokayukta and the case against minister Kamaraj had been dismissed by the Chief Secretary due to a lack of prima facie evidence.

The cases filed by Appavu came up for hearing before the bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy yesterday. The counsel for Appavu submitted that he filed the plea in his personal capacity and that now he was willing to withdraw it, as he was now speaker. Recording the submission, the bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy permitted him to withdraw the plea.

(with inputs from AsiaNetNews)

Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Madras HC quashes corruption cases against AIADMK ministers as DMK Appavu agrees to withdraw case appeared first on The Commune.