MHC Annual Report 2011 2014

8/9/2019 MHC Annual Report 2011 2014

1/182


2/182

Madras HigH Court

REPORT

2011-2014


3/182

Madras High CourtReport 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.


5/182


6/182

Editorial Board

Justice S.NAGAMUTHU

Justice P.N.PRAKASH Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA


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


8/182

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.


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


10/182

Looks Young Though 150 Years Old


11/182

Madras High Court


12/182

Part A

Madras High Court

REPORT 2011-2014

3


13/182

The Chief Justice of India

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. DATTU

REPORT 2011-2014

Madras High Court 4


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


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


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


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


18/182

The Chief Justice of High Court of Madras

Hon’ble Mr. Justice SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

Madras High Court

REPORT 2011-2014

9


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


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


Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Sudhakar

Born on : 14.02.1959


Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Tamilvanan

Born on : 06.02.1954


Madras High Court

REPORT 2011-2014

11


21/182

Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.Ramasubramanian

Born on : 30.06.1958


Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Manikumar

Born on : 24.04.1961


Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Selvam

Born on : 05.04.1956


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


Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Palanivelu

Born on : 11.05.1955


REPORT 2011-2014



22/182

Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S. Ramanathan

Born on : 16.06.1953


Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K.Sasidharan

Born on : 28.10.1957


Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Rajendran

Born on : 01.04.1955


Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Venugopal

Born on : 07.05.1957


Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subbiah

Born on : 21.06.1959


Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.Sathyanarayanan

Born on : 10.06.1959


Madras High Court

REPORT 2011-2014

13


23/182

Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Hariparanthaman

Born on : 17.03.1954


Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Selvam

Born on : 09.02.1957


Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.S. Karnan

Born on : 12.06.1955


Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Kirubakaran

Born on : 21.08.1959


Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh

Born on : 21.07.1962


Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S.Sivagnanam

Born on : 16.09.1963


REPORT 2011-2014



24/182

Hon’ble Selvi. Justice R. Mala

Born on : 15.03.1955


Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Aruna Jagadeesan

Born on : 26.03.1953


Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Mathivanan

Born on : 28.05.1955


Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Duraiswamy

Born on : 22.09.1960


Hon’ble Selvi. Justice K.B.K.Vasuki

Born on : 09.09.1953


Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Raja

Born on : 25.05.1961


Madras High Court

REPORT 2011-2014

15


25/182

Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Ravichandrabaabu

Born on : 14.10.1958


Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.Devadass

Born on : 15.05.1955


Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.Karuppiah

Born on : 07.04.1953


Hon’ble Mrs.Justice S.Vimala

Born on : 11.01.1957


Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.N.Prakash

Born on : 12.01.1961


Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana

Born on : 28.02.1960


REPORT 2011-2014



26/182

Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kalyanasundaram

Born on : 27.05.1960


Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan

Born on : 17.08.1962


Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan

Born on : 10.06.1963


Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.S. Ravi

Born on : 20.05.1954


Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chockalingam

Born on : 01.04.1955


Hon’ble Selvi Justice V.M.Velumani

Born on : 06.04.1962


Madras High Court

REPORT 2011-2014

17


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



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


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



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


31/182

Strength of

Judges as on31.12.201443

Permanent Judges - 45

Additional Judges - 15

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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


August

2011Justice K.N.Basha, Justice T.Sudanthiram & Justice S.Nagamuthu

August


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


43/182

FULL BENCHES CONSTITUTED DURING 2011-2014

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

MONTH &

YEARCORAM

July


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



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


45/182


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


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



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


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



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


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



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


53/182


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


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



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


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

Documents

MHC Annual Report 2011 2014