Seeman moves Madras High Court for re-issue of lost passport
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, on Tuesday (July 15, 2025), directed a central government counsel to take notice on behalf of the RPO and accepted a request made by a Tamil Nadu government advocate to grant time till July 22 for filing a status report on behalf of the Inspector of Neelankarai police station in Chennai.
In his affidavit, the petitioner stated that he had been facing motivated criminal cases since 2008 and yet he had been visiting many foreign countries to meet the Tamil diaspora. When the RPO refused to reissue Seeman passport with additional pages in 2013, he had approached the High Court and obtained a favourable order.
However, when he planned to visit some neighbouring countries in September 2024, he learnt to have lost his passport somewhere. Immediately, a police complaint was lodged and a Lost Document Report (LDR) was obtained on October 10, 2024. Thereafter, he applied for reissuance of the passport in November 2024.
The RPO on January 31, 2025 refused to reissue the passport, the petitioner complained and contended he was not facing any serious charges and there was no likelihood of him absconding or evading the course of justice. Mere pendency of a few 'motivated criminal cases' could not be a reason to deny passport, he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
SC agrees to constitute search committee for V-Cs' appointments in APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and Digital University Kerala
The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to step in to resolve the impasse between the Kerala Governor, who is also the Chancellor of universities, and the State government over the formation of a search committee for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors to the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) and Digital University Kerala (DUK). A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan said it would appoint the search committee. It asked the State and the Governor to provide, by August 14, four names each for inclusion on the five-member search panel. The court would select four names for the search committee from both lists. The fifth member of the search committee would be nominated by the University Grants Commission (UGC). Justice Pardiwala said neither the Governor nor the State should insist on appointing interim V-Cs. 'Our endeavour is to appoint regular V-Cs. Today the entire problem is with the constitution of a search committee. We will help you out. We will constitute a search committee, which would give an opinion as to who are fit enough to be V-Cs. Then, you (Chancellor-State Governor would sit in consultation with the State government and select one for the digital university and another for the technology university,' Justice Pardiwala addressed Attorney General R. Venkataramani, appearing for the Chancellor-Governor. Mr. Venkataramani said the Governor had only appointed interim V-Cs from serving V-Cs of other universities. 'We had done nothing wrong,' the top law officer submitted. He was referring to how the Kerala High Court had quashed Chancellor's appointment of temporary V-Cs to the universities without consulting with the State government. 'This is not a power struggle. This is a federal issue. We have an underlying common culture in this country. But every State is very different. So, therefore, education is on the Concurrent List. The Chancellor is trying to ensure there is no whiff of Kerala in his appointments. Like this, the federal nature of the process would get diluted,' senior advocate Jaideep Gupta and advocate CK Sasi, appearing for Kerala, submitted. Mr. Gupta said the 'unilateral' appointment of interim V-Cs for six months by the Chancellor was in breach of Section 13(7) of the Technological University Act. The provision mandated that interim V-Cs should be appointed only on the recommendation of the State government'. Justice Pardiwala responded to Mr. Gupta's submission by reading out the court's July 30 order in the case, which said 'in the event a vacancy of Vice-Chancellor arises the Chancellor may appoint a Vice-Chancellor of any other university or the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the university itself or the Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department 'as recommended by the government'.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
New three-judge SC bench to hear NCR stray dog case on August 14
After widespread protests across the country following a top court verdict on relocation of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR, a new three-judge bench of the Supreme Court will hear the suo motu case on Thursday. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria will hear the matter. The directions to permanently relocate all strays from streets to shelters "at the earliest" were passed by a bench comprising Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan on August 11. When some petitioners in another stray dogs-related case mentioned their plea while referring to the August 11 verdict before the Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, he said he "will look into it". On August 11, a bench of Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan observed instances of dog bites had given rise to an "extremely grim" situation and ordered the permanent relocation of all strays in Delhi-NCR "at the earliest". On Wednesday, the lawyer referred to a May 2024 order passed by a bench led by Justice J K Maheshwari relegating petitions relating to the stray dog issue to respective high courts. The plea by Conference for Human Rights (India) claims the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2001 mandating regular sterilisation and immunisation programmes for stray dogs to curtail their growing population are not being complied with. In its August 11 ruling, the apex court also said dog shelters will have to be augmented over time and directed Delhi authorities to start with creating shelters of around 5,000 canines within six to eight weeks. Besides, the bench warned of strict action against an individual or organisation in case of any kind of obstruction in the relocation drive that might also prompt the court to initiate contempt proceedings.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
CJI forms three-judge bench to resolve conflicting SC orders on stray dogs
NEW DELHI: The CJI B R Gavai on Wednesday late evening constituted a three-judge bench to hear the stray dog case matter on August 14, Thursday, after it was told by an organisation that the orders passed by this court on many occasions in the past relating to stray dogs were different and conflicting in nature. It is to be noted that this case was different from the two-judge bench which passed the order on August 11 to remove the Delhi-NCR stray dogs and send them to shelters within eight weeks. The fresh three-judge bench, which will hear the stray dogs matter on Thursday, will be headed by Justice Vikram Nath, and will also comprise Justices Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria. The court decided to hear the case on Thursday, after it heard a mentioning in the morning on Wednesday by a lawyer, Nanita Sharma. She mentioned the matter before the bench of the top court, led by CJI Gavai, that two benches of the apex court had earlier passed different and conflicting orders on the stray dogs issue and that the court should hear the matter and clarify the confusion. After hearing this, the CJI said, in the morning, "I will look into it." He assured the lawyer that the court would examine the ongoing issue relating to community/stray dogs, as she claimed that there were different and conflicting orders on the stray dogs issue by this court. Sharma, for an organisation named The Conference for Human Rights (India), mentioned before the bench of the top court, also comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran, that this was with regard to the community dogs issue. "There is an earlier judgment of this court, of a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, which says there cannot be indiscriminate killing of canines and that compassion for all living beings has to be there,' the lawyer submitted. She also said that recently, two days ago, there was an order passed by a bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala, which had ordered relocation of the stray dogs in Delhi to dog shelters. Another order was passed by Justice JK Maheshwari-led bench in May 2024, whereby the petitions relating to the stray dog issue were relegated to the respective High Courts, she contended. After hearing these submissions, the apex court said it will look into the case, as the CJI also added that another bench recently has already passed an order in relation to stray dogs. On August 11, a bench of Justices Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ordered the Delhi-NCR to start removing stray dogs from all localities within eight weeks and house them in dedicated dog shelters to be set up by civic authorities.
