‘Anti-national content': Madras HC stays student's ouster
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has stayed the rustication order issued by the Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development (RGNIYD) in Sriperumbudur near here against a student, who was ousted from the institute for alleged defacement of the hostel property with content of 'anti-national' nature, and ordered the institute to allow him to take his final year examinations and participate in the placement programme.
Justice T V Thamilselvi issued the order on Thursday on a petition filed by S Aslam, a final year student of Master of Social Work, who had alleged that the inquiry by the institute regarding the defacement was conducted in an 'arbitrary and illegal manner'.
The RGNIYD, functioning under the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sport, took the stringent measure against Aslam and two other students last Sunday (May 25), following an inspection of some of the hostel rooms after an inquiry triggered by slogans such as 'Jai Bhim' and 'Free Palestine' found on the hostel wall. Sayeedh M A and Nahal Ibnu Abullaise, pursuing the same course, were the other two who faced the punishment.
The high court's order pertained to Aslam who had filed the petition.
The judge observed that if the petitioner-student is not allowed to appear for the exam, it will put him to hardship.
Considering the student was at the end of his academic course, Justice Thamilselvi said, 'If he is not permitted to attend the examination and internship programme, it will cause too much hardship to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order passed by the first respondent (director of the institute) dated 25.05.2025 is ordered to be stayed.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Madras High Court says same-sex couples can form family without marriage
The Madras High Court held that same-sex couples can indeed form a family, even though same-sex marriages are yet to be legally recognised in court made this observation while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking the release of her 25-year-old partner, who had been forcibly detained by her birth family.A division bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan ruled in favour of the couple, asserting that 'marriage is not the sole mode to found a family.'advertisement 'To a specific question from us, the detenue replied that she is a lesbian and in a relationship with the writ petitioner,' the court noted. The woman stated she had been beaten and subjected to rituals aimed at making her 'normal.' She expressed fear for her life and told the court she wished to be with the the petitioner had described herself merely as a 'close friend' in her police complaint, the court said it understood the hesitation, acknowledging that same-sex relationships still face societal bench cited the Supreme Court's rulings in NALSA and Navtej Johar, affirming that sexual orientation is a matter of personal autonomy and dignity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also referenced a previous ruling by Justice Anand Venkatesh in Prasanna J vs. S Sushma, where a 'Deed of Familial Association' between LGBTQIA+ partners was approved, recognising civil concept of a 'chosen family' is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence,' the bench observed. 'The petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family.'The court ordered the immediate release of the woman, restrained her birth family from interfering in her personal liberty, and directed the police to provide protection to both women as and when required.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Bengaluru stampede: Karnataka HC takes suo motu cognizance of matter, calls for status report from state govt by next Tuesday
The Karnataka High Court Thursday took suo motu cognizance of the recent stampede near the Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru, calling for a status report from the state government by next Tuesday. The case was heard by a division bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice C M Joshi. At least 11 deaths and many injuries had resulted from the stampede, which occurred after a large crowd had gathered outside the stadium to celebrate the victory of the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) in the latest edition of the Indian Premier League (IPL). The court stated, 'News items have been published by various newspapers… wherein a narration has been made about the unfortunate public tragedy on 4/6/2025. This court, taking cognizance of the incident… to ascertain the reasons which led to the tragedy, whether the tragedy could have been prevented, what remedial measures need to be taken to prevent such tragedies in future.' Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty submitted that 1,318 local cops, as well as 325 personnel from the Karnataka State Reserve Police, were deployed in the vicinity of the Chinnaswamy Stadium during the celebratory event on Wednesday. Shetty also provided other details like the number of ambulances, water tankers, and fire tenders present at the spot. He stated, 'More than 2.5 lakh persons gathered around Chinnaswamy Stadium, resulting in… death of 11 persons at various gates.' In response to a query from the court on standard operating procedures (SOPs) and the presence of ambulances, the advocate general said, 'The Government has taken the issue seriously and is exploring the option of issuing a fresh SOP to regulate public gathering… of every kind.' He informed that while facilities like ambulances were there, they were not sufficient given the strength of the crowd. He added that the stadium can accommodate only 34,600 people. The advocate general said, 'We have given notices to the Royal Challengers, DNA (an event management company)… FIR has also been filed against them… we are as… concerned as anybody else, it is not that we are hiding. The first statement that the Hon'ble Chief Minister made was giving compensation, medical treatment, coming up with new SOPs…' Making a submission before the court, an advocate asked whether the state government or the Karnataka State Cricket Association had taken the decision to felicitate the cricketers of the RCB franchise. He also questioned the decision to felicitate the players as they did not participate on behalf of the state or the country. Referring to a magisterial inquiry into the stampede ordered by the state government, senior advocate Aruna Shyam said, 'The subdivisional magistrate or deputy commissioner who shall be part of controlling the entire mob has been deputed to inquire into the incident.' He added that an independent inquiry might be required.
NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
"Same-Sex Couple Can Very Well Form A Family": Madras High Court
Chennai: Though the Supreme Court may not have legalised marriage between same sex couples, they can very well form a family, the Madras High Court has held and allowed a young woman to join her female partner and said the two women can constitute a family. A division bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan said the expression "family" has to be understood in an expanded sense. Hearing a writ petition seeking to produce before court a 25-year old woman and set her at liberty, the bench said: "To a specific question from us, the detenue (the 25-year old woman) replied that she is a lesbian and in relationship with the writ petitioner." "She made it clear to the court that she wanted to go with the petitioner. She confirmed the allegation that she is being detained against her will by her natal family. It appeared that she was forcibly taken to her home and beaten. She told us that her natal family members forced her to undergo certain rituals so that she will become "normal". She even apprehended danger to her life. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has nowhere described the true nature of her relationship with the detenue. Even in her complaint to the police, the petitioner called herself as the detenue's close friend. We can understand the hesitation on her part," the court said. Further, the court said: "While Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs Union of India (Supreme Court) may not have legalised marriage between same sex couples, they can very well form a family. Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family." The concept of "chosen family" is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA jurisprudence, the court said, adding the petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family. Justice Anand Venkatesh, Judge of Madras HC, in Prasanna J Vs S Sushma approved a "Deed of familial Association" that purported to recognise the civil union entered into between LGBTQAI partners. The Supreme Court, in NALSA and Navtej Johar case, declared that sexual orientation is a matter of individual choice and that it is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom. It is an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression and falls within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court, in its judgment dated May 22, 2025 said: "Since we have satisfied ourselves that the detenue wants to join the petitioner and that she is being detained against her will, we allow this Habeas Corpus petition and set her at liberty. We also restrain the detenue's natal family members from interfering with her personal liberty." Also, the court directed the police to provide protection to the detenue as well as the petitioner as and when required. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
