Judge, wife visit litigant's bed-ridden father at home to find out his mental condition
The judge decided to go to the man's house at Kodambakkam in Chennai after taking into account that his production before the court would cause immense physical inconvenience to him since he had suffered a stroke in 2021, lost his ability to speak, and was being tube- fed since then.
Plea for appointment
Justice Swaminathan took his wife along with him since she was experienced in dealing with mentally ill persons. The decision was taken at the hearing of a case filed by Sivakumar Chellathurai in 2023 for appointing him as the manager of his father P.K.M. Durai's properties and permit him to dispose them of.
The petition had been filed under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent which confers parens patriae jurisdiction on the High Court in respect of 'minors, lunatics and idiots'. The judge said that though such expressions could not be employed any longer, they continue to find a place in the statute.
Leaving that aside, the judge found that the litigant had also filed a sub- application for a direction to his mother Kousalya Devi and younger brother C. Sabari Kumar to take his father to a hospital for follow-up and review. The applicant had asserted his father was mentally ill.
Two words
To ascertain if the assertion was true, the judge's wife wrote the words 'hospital' and 'home' one below the other on a piece of paper and requested Mr. Durai to point out his preference. Due to the difficulty in motor coordination, the aged man initially touched the word 'hospital'.
However, when the judge asked if he wished to be shifted to a hospital, the litigant's father began weeping. Immediately, Ms. Kamakshi wrote the words 'home' and 'hospital' on two sides of the paper and this time, Mr. Durai touched the word 'home' and indicated by gestures that he was comfortable at home.
'Due to his physical condition, he was drooling. Whenever he drooled, he took his handkerchief with the help of his left hand and wiped the saliva. Whenever he cried, he also used handkerchief to wipe his tears. From all this, I could come to a clear and categorical conclusion that Thiru. P.K.M. Durai was suffering only from serious physical debilities. But his mental condition was rather good. By no stretch of imagination can Thiru. P.K.M. Durai be called as a lunatic-cum-idiot,' Justice Swaminathan concluded.
After holding a detailed interaction with the mother and the younger brother of the applicant, the judge found that they both had no objection to the applicant visiting their home to see his father.
'No merit in the application'
'I am of the clear view that what Thiru. P.K.M. Durai requires now is loving care. If he is shifted to hospital, he would definitely suffer from loneliness. He may be confined in ICU. If he is at home, he will be surrounded by his immediate family members. He will have the company of his grandchildren. The interests of Thiru. P.K.M. Durai are paramount and I am more satisfied that there is no merit in the application,' the judge wrote.
Despite observing that the main case filed by the elder son was itself not maintainable, the judge refrained from dismissing it, since a senior counsel engaged by the litigants was not present before him.
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
Madras HC Division Bench stays single judge's order favouring allotment of Kalaignarin Kanavu Illam houses to Tamil writers
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday (August 8, 2025) stayed the operation of an order passed by a single judge who had quashed a Government Order (G.O.) issued on March 4, 2024, for cancelling the allotment of houses in Shenoy Nagar and Anna Nagar in Chennai to noted Tamil writers Maraimalai Ilakkuvanar and G. Thilagavathy, also a retired IPS officer, under the Kalaignarin Kanavu Illam scheme. The Bench comprising Justices J. Nisha Banu and M. Jothiraman granted the interim stay following a writ appeal filed by the State government against the single judge's order. In the meantime, two new writ petitions filed by lyricist R. Vairamuthu and Tamil scholar M. Rajendran, challenging the cancellation of similar allotments, were listed for admission before Justice N. Anand Venkatesh on Friday. The judge ordered notices to the government in the two new writ petitions and adjourned them to be decided after the writ appeals get disposed of finally.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Remarks against Allahabad HC judge: SC deletes observations after CJI intervenes
New Delhi, Aug 8 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday deleted its observations criticising Allahabad High Court judge Prashant Kumar for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case, making it clear that its intention was not embarrass or cast aspersions on him. On August 4, A bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed it was expected of the high court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil disputes a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of the law. 'We request the the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to assign this matter to any other Judge of the High Court as he may deem fit. The Chief Justice of High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge. The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court (sic)," the top court order said. The bench on Friday said the observations were meant to ensure the dignity of the judiciary was maintained. 'We reiterate, whatever we said in our order was to ensure that the dignity and the authority of the judiciary as a whole is maintained high in the minds of the people of this country. It is not just a matter of error or mistake by the judge concerned in appreciating the legal points or facts. We were concerned about the appropriate direction to be issued in the interest of justice and to protect the honour and dignity of the institution," the bench said. The bench clarified it was not its intention to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the judge concerned. 'We would not even think of doing so. However, when the matters cross a threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperilled, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this court to intervene even when acting under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution," the top court said. The bench explained it was deleting the observations after a request was made by Chief Justice B R Gavai to reconsider the matter. 'We have received an undated letter from the Chief Justice of India requesting the reconsideration of the observations… In such circumstances, we directed the Registry to re-notify the main matter for considering the request made by the Chief Justice of India," the bench said. The top court further noted high courts were not 'separate islands" that could be disassociated from this institution. Acknowledging the high court chief justice was the master of the roster, the top court left it to him to take call in the matter. 'We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster. The directions are absolutely not interfering with the administrative power of the Chief Justice of the High Court. When matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, this court may be compelled to step in and take corrective step," the order added. The apex court further hoped not to come across such 'perverse and unjust" order from any high court. 'The endeavour of the high court should always be to uphold the rule of law and to maintain institutional credibility. If the rule of law is not maintained or protected within the court itself, then that would be the end of the entire justice system of the country," the bench said. The order underlined the responsibilities of judges who were expected to work 'efficiently, discharge their duties diligently and always try and endeavour to fulfil their constituional oath". On August 4, the same top court bench stripped criminal matters of the roster of the Allahabad High Court judge till he demitted office after observing he 'erroneously" upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute. A group of judges of the Allahabad High Court wrote to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali urging him to convene a full court meeting in response to the Supreme Court's unprecedented order. The letter was written by Justice Arindam Sinha and seven judges signed the letter. In its order, the top court made strong observations against Justice Kumar's judicial reasoning and further directed the high court administration to remove him from the criminal roster. It further directed for him to be assigned a division bench alongside a senior judge until his retirement. The high court judge had refused to quash a magistrate's summoning order against a company which was accused of not paying the balance monetary sum in a business transaction of civil nature. He said asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for recovering the amount was unreasonable being time intensive. Calling the high court judge's order 'erroneous", the top court, which was hearing a challenge against it, said the judge went ahead to the extent of saying the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount. The top court said the high court order was one of the 'worst and most erroneous" orders that it came across in their respective tenures as judges of the top court. The high court had dismissed an application filed by one M/S Shikhar Chemicals seeking to quash summoning order in a case of commercial transaction. In the case, the complainant (Lalita Textiles) delivered goods in the form of threads to Shikhar Chemicals worth Rs 52.34 lakh of which an amount of Rs 47.75 lakh came to be paid, however, the balance amount has not been paid, till date. Lalita Textiles filed a criminal complaint for the recovery of the balance amount. Thereafter, the complainant's statement was recorded and a magisterial court issued summons against the applicant. top videos View all The company moved the high court against the order, contending the dispute was purely civil in nature. The high court, however, rejected the plea. PKS AMK AMK (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 08, 2025, 15:30 IST News agency-feeds Remarks against Allahabad HC judge: SC deletes observations after CJI intervenes 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.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Remarks against Allahabad HC judge: SC deletes observations after CJI intervenes
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday deleted its observations criticising Allahabad High Court judge Prashant Kumar for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case, making it clear that its intention was not embarrass or cast aspersions on him. Remarks against Allahabad HC judge: SC deletes observations after CJI intervenes On August 4, A bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed it was expected of the high court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil disputes a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of the law. "We request the the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to assign this matter to any other Judge of the High Court as he may deem fit. The Chief Justice of High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge. The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court ," the top court order said. The bench on Friday said the observations were meant to ensure the dignity of the judiciary was maintained. "We reiterate, whatever we said in our order was to ensure that the dignity and the authority of the judiciary as a whole is maintained high in the minds of the people of this country. It is not just a matter of error or mistake by the judge concerned in appreciating the legal points or facts. We were concerned about the appropriate direction to be issued in the interest of justice and to protect the honour and dignity of the institution," the bench said. The bench clarified it was not its intention to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the judge concerned. "We would not even think of doing so. However, when the matters cross a threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperilled, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this court to intervene even when acting under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution," the top court said. The bench explained it was deleting the observations after a request was made by Chief Justice B R Gavai to reconsider the matter. "We have received an undated letter from the Chief Justice of India requesting the reconsideration of the observations... In such circumstances, we directed the Registry to re-notify the main matter for considering the request made by the Chief Justice of India," the bench said. The top court further noted high courts were not "separate islands" that could be disassociated from this institution. Acknowledging the high court chief justice was the master of the roster, the top court left it to him to take call in the matter. "We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster. The directions are absolutely not interfering with the administrative power of the Chief Justice of the High Court. When matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, this court may be compelled to step in and take corrective step," the order added. The apex court further hoped not to come across such "perverse and unjust" order from any high court. "The endeavour of the high court should always be to uphold the rule of law and to maintain institutional credibility. If the rule of law is not maintained or protected within the court itself, then that would be the end of the entire justice system of the country," the bench said. The order underlined the responsibilities of judges who were expected to work "efficiently, discharge their duties diligently and always try and endeavour to fulfil their constituional oath". On August 4, the same top court bench stripped criminal matters of the roster of the Allahabad High Court judge till he demitted office after observing he "erroneously" upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute. A group of judges of the Allahabad High Court wrote to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali urging him to convene a full court meeting in response to the Supreme Court's unprecedented order. The letter was written by Justice Arindam Sinha and seven judges signed the letter. In its order, the top court made strong observations against Justice Kumar's judicial reasoning and further directed the high court administration to remove him from the criminal roster. It further directed for him to be assigned a division bench alongside a senior judge until his retirement. The high court judge had refused to quash a magistrate's summoning order against a company which was accused of not paying the balance monetary sum in a business transaction of civil nature. He said asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for recovering the amount was unreasonable being time intensive. Calling the high court judge's order "erroneous", the top court, which was hearing a challenge against it, said the judge went ahead to the extent of saying the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount. The top court said the high court order was one of the "worst and most erroneous" orders that it came across in their respective tenures as judges of the top court. The high court had dismissed an application filed by one M/S Shikhar Chemicals seeking to quash summoning order in a case of commercial transaction. In the case, the complainant delivered goods in the form of threads to Shikhar Chemicals worth ₹52.34 lakh of which an amount of ₹47.75 lakh came to be paid, however, the balance amount has not been paid, till date. Lalita Textiles filed a criminal complaint for the recovery of the balance amount. Thereafter, the complainant's statement was recorded and a magisterial court issued summons against the applicant. The company moved the high court against the order, contending the dispute was purely civil in nature. The high court, however, rejected the plea. PKS AMK AMK This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
