Ma Su directed to appear in court for framing of charges
Chennai: A special court in Chennai has directed health minister Ma Subramanian and his wife Kanchana to appear in person on May 23 in connection with a land grab case .After Madras high court dismissed Ma Subramanian's petition to quash the case last week, the special court directed the couple to appear for framing of charges. When the matter was taken up on Monday, they were absent. Counsel for Subramanian and his wife sought a adjournment saying an appeal was pending before the Supreme Court.Rejecting the request, special judge G Prabhakaran adjourned the matter to May 23. He warned that if the couple failed to appear without obtaining a stay from the Supreme Court, charges would be framed in their absence.The case relates to a SIDCO-owned plot in Kotturpuram originally allotted to S K Kannan. It is alleged that Ma Subramanian, during his tenure as Chennai Mayor, misused his official position to transfer the land to his wife's name using fraudulent documents. A complaint by a Saidapet resident, Parthiban, led to a CB-CID probe and the filing of a chargesheet in 2019 under forgery, cheating, criminal conspiracy, and Prevention of Corruption Act provisions.The case is pending before the special court handling cases against MPs and MLAs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
32 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Collegium system imperfect but preserves ‘judiciary's autonomy', says Supreme Court judge
The Supreme Court's Justice Surya Kant has said that the collegium system of appointing judges, despite its imperfections, serves as a 'crucial institutional safeguard' and preserves the judiciary's autonomy, The Indian Express reported on Sunday. Kant, who is slated to become the next chief justice of India, said that the collegium system 'significantly limits interference by the Executive and Legislature, thereby preserving the Judiciary's autonomy and insulating judges from extraneous pressures that could otherwise compromise their impartiality,' the newspaper reported. Under the collegium system, the five most senior judges of the Supreme Court, including the chief justice, decide on the appointments and transfers of judges to the top court and the High Courts. Speaking at Seattle University in the United States on June 4, Kant acknowledged that the system has faced criticism, especially on the lack of publicly articulated criteria for selecting judges. However, he said that 'recent efforts by the Supreme Court signal a growing commitment to enhancing transparency and public confidence in it'. In 2022, the Supreme Court Collegium had published detailed documentation of its deliberations on selecting five judges. Since October 2017, the Collegium has also been publishing its resolution on the court's official website. Kant also said that the 'the judiciary's evolving relationship with its own independence, lies at the very heart of how India's vast, pluralistic democracy continues to function with remarkable cohesion'. He also said that some phases of institutional strain 'particularly during the Emergency' eventually 'gave way to renewed judicial consciousness'. In recent years, the Bharatiya Janata Party government at the Centre has been selectively appointing judges recommended for elevation to the bench by the Supreme Court collegium, which has allowed the Union government to exercise a veto over judicial appointments. The executive and the judiciary have been in a tug-of-war regarding appointments to higher judiciary in recent years. Former Law Minister Kiren Rijiju and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar have repeatedly criticised the collegium system of appointing judges, contending that it is opaque. In 2014, the BJP-led government had introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act with the objective of making appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts 'more broad-based, transparent, accountable and bringing objectivity in the system'. The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act had proposed to make judicial appointments through a body consisting of the chief justice, two senior Supreme Court judges, the Union law minister and two other eminent persons nominated by the chief justice, the prime minister and the Leader of the Opposition. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the Act, ruling that it was unconstitutional.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Stampede Case: No action against RCB, DNA till June 12, A-G assures HC as Judge hears pleas for relief
The Karnataka High Court posted for June 12, Thursday, petitions from the Royal Challengers Sports Limited, the franchise of RCB and the event manager DNA Entertainment Network praying for quashing of the FIR filed against their executives in connection with the June 4 stampede outside of Chinnaswamy stadium in Bengaluru that claimed 11 lives and left scores of others injured. Justice SR Krishna Kumar posted the case to hear for interim relief after eliciting an assurance from Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty that the government would not take any precipitative action against the petitioners till the matter was heard at the next date. The A-G also informed the court that RCB and DNA invited people to the celebrations at the stadium though they had no permission to hold the event at the stadium. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like I lost my wife, now my son is in danger, please help him! Donate For Health Donate Now Undo The Judge is now seized of three petitions arising from the same FIR registered at Cubbon Park police station on June 5 and transferred to the CID . The Court has already granted relief from police arrest for two office-bearers of the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA). The police have already arrested four senior executives, including RCB marketing head Nikhil Sosale, and the Advocate General said they are under the remand. The court is also hearing separate petitions from Sosale and others seeking relief. The RCB counsel argued before the court that the City Police carried out the arrest on orders from Chief Minister Siddaramaiah who had no role in this after the case had been handed over to the CID. A political leader cannot order an 'arrest' which is at the discretion of the investigating officer, he said. Live Events HEARING ON STAMPEDE The state government is expected to submit a status report before a division bench of acting chief justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice CM Joshi on June 10, Tuesday, when it resumes hearing on the tragedy. The HC has taken up suo motu cognizance of the ghastly stampede caused during the IPL victory celebrations of the RCB. Quite a few public-spirited people have moved the high court seeking justice in the case. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah will on Tuesday leave for Delhi to meet up with the AICC leadership to explain the developments around the tragedy and his administration's handling of the crisis including the steps taken like suspension of officers for dereliction of duty.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court to hear plea on threats of violence linked to the screening of Thug Life in Karnataka on June 13
The Supreme Court on Monday (June 9, 2025) agreed to hear on June 13 a plea to ensure the safe and unimpeded screening of Kamal Haasan's Tamil movie 'Thug Life' in Karnataka, and direct the State government to take action against elements who have issued threats and incited violence against theatres and the makers of the film. A Vacation Bench headed by Justice P.K. Mishra scheduled the case for hearing this week on the basis of an oral mentioning made by the advocates for the petitioner, M. Mahesh Reddy, a Bengaluru resident, represented by advocates A. Velan and Navpreet Kaur. Ms. Kaur, seeking urgent listing of the writ petition, said 'fringe elements' were threatening arson against the theatres that screen the film. Mr. Velan said the move to appeal to the apex court had been necessitated by the fact that the Karnataka High Court had 'distressingly appeared to prioritise appeasement'. 'Instead of a clear directive to the State to stop the illegal threats and protect a certified film's exhibition, fundamental to restoring law and order, the discussion reportedly focused on whether Mr. Kamal Haasan should apologise to the very fringe elements intimidating him and threatening public order. This effective endorsement of coercive censorship by suggesting compromise with perpetrators makes the High Court pathway currently ineffective for securing justice, compelling this urgent appeal in the Supreme Court as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution,' the petition submitted. The petition questioned the Karnataka government's 'flagrant failure' to maintain law and order in the State, and protect constitutional freedoms. It said the 'unconstitutional extra-judicial ban' in Karnataka stems not from any lawful process but from a deliberate campaign of terror, including explicit threats of arson against cinema halls, incitement to large-scale communal violence targeting linguistic minorities, and a chilling call for a repeat of past anti-Tamil riots. 'This serious situation occurs within a disturbing societal context where chauvinistic elements have targeted linguistic minorities such as Hindi speakers in Bengaluru with impunity, fostering a climate of fear that now directly threatens constitutional order over this film… Even as Victory Cinema, a movie theatre in Bengaluru, announced its intent to screen 'Thug Life', forces of intimidation struck openly. Mr. T.A. Narayana Gowda of Karnataka Rakshana Vedike (KRV) publicly threatened to 'set theatres on fire' while social media was used for inciting a violent revival of the 1991 anti-Tamil riots,' the petition highlighted.
