Advisory board to validate Goondas Act cases inaugurated in Madurai
Speaking to reporters Basha said the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court played a major role in establishing the board in Madurai and the state government acted quickly in arranging everything for its functioning.
Stating the purpose of the board in Madurai, Basha said it is difficult for police to transfer a detainee from Kanniyakumari to Chennai. To avoid such difficulties, the board has been established in Madurai, which covers 20 districts, including Coimbatore, Tiruppur, Thanjavur, Pudukottai, Karur, Tiruchy, Ariyalur, Nagapattinam, Perambalur, Tiruvarur, and ten southern districts.
Explaining the process, Basha said police will request the detaining authority (collector/commissioner of police) to issue orders for detention under the Goondas Act to prevent the detainee from committing the crime again, breaching public order, or being a habitual offender.
They then will produce the detained person before the board. The board ensures the detainee understands why they are being detained under the act so that they can challenge it. 'We can either dismiss the detention order or accept it, which will be conveyed to the state government.
The board will check all aspects, including whether the detention is legal or against the law. Once detention is confirmed, the accused will remain in prison for a year without bail from the date the detention order is passed,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Chennai corporation sanitation workers protesting against privatisation forcefully evicted by police
Hours after the Madras High Court, on Wednesday, directed the State to take action to remove the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) sanitation workers, who have been protesting at the Rippon Building since August 1, police moved in to evict them from the place. As of the latest reports, the eviction has begun. Tension prevailed as workers protesting against privatisation were evicted by the police. The workers chanted "Jai Bhim" and decried the "police atrocity" as they courted arrest. "Several police vehicles reached the location where the sanitation workers have been protesting against the resolution of the Corporation Council to outsource sanitation work soon after the court order on Wednesday afternoon," Prashanth of Left Trade Union Centre (LTUC) said. Advocate Kannan of UUI and DAA said that nearby roads were blocked around 10 pm on Wednesday and that buses had been brought. Activist Shalin Maria Lawrence said, "We have 3000 people, of whom 2000 are sanitation workers; 90 per cent of them are women with kids, and elderly women, and they are Dalits. Food trucks have been blocked since Tuesday afternoon, and most of them are hungry. But they are firm that they will not leave the situation is tense and volatile." She added that when all these things were happening, Chief Minister M K Stalin was watching the preview of Rajinikanth's Coolie. "I have never seen such an insensitive CM in Tamil Nadu," she said.
The Hindu
7 hours ago
- The Hindu
Plea to establish National Centre for Ageing in all districts in Tamil Nadu dismissed
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed a petition that sought a direction to the Centre to establish National Centre for Ageing in all districts in Tamil Nadu. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete observed that welfare schemes were being implemented by the Central and the State governments for the benefit of senior citizens. The court observed that the number of centres to be established cannot be gone into by the High Court in writ proceedings. It is for the government to implement welfare schemes for the benefit of citizens in a phased manner and such implementation is a matter of policy decision. The court was hearing the petition filed by K.K. Ramesh of Madurai. The petitioner said parents were being ignored by their own children and the elderly were being disrespected. The number of old age homes had increased. There were complaints that some old age homes charge high fees and do not take care of the elderly. This is causing difficulties to the elderly. Some old age homes do not provide basic facilities, food, medicine, etc, he said and sought a direction to the Centre to establish the National Centre for Ageing in all districts in the State.
News18
12 hours ago
- News18
‘Hand-Pulling Alone Doesn't Prove Outraging Modesty Without Intent': Madras HC Acquits Man
The bench of Justice RN Manjula emphasised that intent cannot be presumed from vague or generalised witness statements. Pulling a woman's hand, though capable of shocking her sense of decency, will amount to outraging her modesty only if it is done with proven criminal intent, the Madras High Court recently said while acquitting a man convicted under Section 354 of the IPC. The bench of Justice RN Manjula emphasised that intent cannot be presumed from vague or generalised witness statements. 'If the accused had any other intention, like pulling the victim away from the centre of a road or to avert an accident, that cannot be considered an offence of outraging modesty without detailed and clear evidence about the intention," the court observed. The decision came in an appeal filed by Murugesan against his conviction by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai. He had been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 1,000 for allegedly pulling the hand of a mentally challenged woman from a Scheduled Caste community in May 2015. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred when the woman was grazing cattle near Nedunkulam Channel. It was alleged that Murugesan approached her, abused her by her caste name, and pulled her hand. The complaint was lodged by her mother (PW1) after she claimed to have learned of the incident from PW2, an eyewitness. During trial, the victim was not examined, as she was unable to respond to the court's questions due to her mental condition. The case turned largely on PW2's evidence, which the High Court later found to be inconsistent. PW2 gave differing accounts on whether she saw the accused assault the victim or arrived after he had left, and her mention of the accused beating the victim was absent from PW1's original complaint. Another witness, PW8, claimed she saw the victim crying after the incident, but her presence was not mentioned by PW2, further weakening the prosecution's case. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Naresh Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 2 SCC 604, Justice Manjula reiterated that conviction under Section 354 requires both the act of applying criminal force and a clear intent to outrage a woman's modesty. The absence of such proof entitled the accused to the benefit of doubt. Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the trial court's conviction, acquitted Murugesan of all charges, ordered the termination of his bail bond, and directed the refund of any fine paid. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
