Madras HC initiates suo motu writ to fast-track minor criminal cases
Chennai:
Madras high court
has initiated a suo motu criminal writ petition to clear the backlog of long-pending minor criminal cases across
Tamil Nadu
and
Puducherry
. Dedicated benches have been set up at the principal seat in Chennai and the Madurai bench to implement the exercise, which is being taken up as a pilot project on the guidance of a Supreme Court committee.
The benches, headed by Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy (Chennai) and Justice KK Ramakrishnan (Madurai), will deal with criminal cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment of up to three years, particularly those pending for over three years at the trial, appeal, or revision stage.
You Can Also Check:
Chennai AQI
|
Weather in Chennai
|
Bank Holidays in Chennai
|
Public Holidays in Chennai
|
Gold Rates Today in Chennai
|
Silver Rates Today in Chennai
The suo motu petition, titled "In the Matter of the Disposal of Criminal Cases through the Dedicated Bench," has impleaded the State of Tamil Nadu, the Union Territory of Puducherry, and the Union of India through their respective home and law departments, directors of prosecution, and DGPs.
According to the high court, the benches may also take up certain offences with higher punishment, such as Section 506(ii) IPC (criminal intimidation), if suitable for speedy disposal. Measures proposed include settling compoundable cases through negotiation or mediation, exploring compromise in non-compoundable cases, permitting govt withdrawal of prosecution in appropriate cases, quashing matters delayed beyond reasonable limits to uphold the right to a speedy trial, and adopting batch disposal of cheque bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
"The goal is to reduce the clogs in the wheel of criminal justice and ensure quality time for serious trials," the court observed, directing the registry to place the matter before Chief Justice Sanjay V Gangapurwala for approval.
MSID:: 123368119 413 |
Stay updated with the latest local news from your
city
on
Times of India
(TOI). Check upcoming
bank holidays
,
public holidays
, and current
gold rates
and
silver prices
in your area.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
12 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court hearing on Presidential Reference: Elected State governments at the mercy of Governors' whims
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) asked the Centre if elected State governments were at the mercy of the whims and fancies of Governors, who could fail Bills by merely withholding assent for them. A Presidential Reference Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai was testing a submission made by the Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and Kanu Agarwal, that State Bills would lapse if Governors withheld assent to proposed laws presented to them for approval under Article 200 of the Constitution. Presidential Reference hearing updates | August 20, 2025 'So, are Governors being given total powers to sit in appeal over the elected representatives? This way, if Bills are failed by Governors, governments formed by majority will be at the mercy of their whims and fancies,' Chief Justice Gavai quizzed Mr. Mehta's interpretation of Article 200. Mr. Mehta responded that the power of a Governor to withhold assent was meant to be used sparingly and only in extraordinary situations, especially when a State Bill frustrated the very democratic will of the nation, or violated fundamental rights, or was repugnant to an existing Central law. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal interjected to point out that if a Governor had the power to lapse a Bill by withholding assent, the same logic would apply to the President of India under Article 111. 'The President can also withhold and fail Bills passed in the Parliament,' Mr. Sibal submitted. The Solicitor General argued that a Governor had 'four' options under Article 200 — grant assent to the Bill; withhold assent to the Bill due to which the proposed law lapses; reserve the Bill for consideration to the President. But in case the Governor exercises the 'fourth' option to return the Bill to the State Assembly, which re-passes the Bill, the Governor is bound to grant assent. He could not withhold the Bill though he could refer it to the President on the ground of repugnancy. High Constitutional authorities, including the President and Governors, were presumed to act within the law and uphold the dignity of their offices, Mr. Mehta said. Governors were not 'nobodies', he submitted. They were representatives of the President, who was bound by the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet, which represented the interests of the nation. 'Governorship is not a sanctum for retired politicians,' Mr. Mehta said. The Chief Justice asked the Solicitor General whether, over the years, the expectations of the Founding Fathers and Mothers regarding these Constitutional functionaries had actually been fulfilled. 'Governors and the elected Ministers of the States are expected to function in harmony, are they?' the Chief Justice queried. Justice Narasimha reasoned that Constitutional interpretation by courts could not be idealistic. Judicial review had to take into account the present day realities. Governors and Speakers were idealistically considered high offices, presumed to function within the law, but the flood of litigation said otherwise. The judge referred to the cases filed in the apex court under the anti-defection law (the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution). The Tenth Schedule was introduced with the best intentions and with ideal expectations about the high office of the Speaker, Justice Narasimha said. But views had changed over the years. 'Constitutional interpretation cannot be static,' Justice Narasimha observed. The Chief Justice said the outcome of the litigation in many Tenth Schedule cases had been 'operation success, patient dead'. Mr. Mehta enumerated instances when Governors were not bound by the aid and advice of the State Cabinet. One of these instances was the Governor's application of discretion to decide which party or political front had a majority to form a government in a State. 'We have seen how, in some cases, the Governors have exercised their discretion and end up in litigation in the apex court,' the CJI responded. The Solicitor General dismissed them as 'aberrations'. It was 'hazardous to interpret the Constitution based on aberrations', Mr. Mehta said.
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Parliamentary panel urges law for OBC, SC, ST quotas in private universities
New Delhi: A Parliamentary panel on Wednesday flagged the 'considerably low' enrolment of Other Backward Classes (OBC) students and the 'abysmally low' presence of Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) students in India's three private universities with Institution of Eminence (IoE) status and recommended a law making reservations mandatory in private higher educational institutions—27% for OBCs, 15% for SCs, and 7.5% for STs—in line with government norms. Proceedings of the Lok Sabha underway during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, in New Delhi on Wednesday. (Sansad TV/ANI Video Grab) The central government has granted IoE status to 20 institutions (10 public and 10 private), thereby giving them special recognition, greater autonomy, and financial support to achieve world-class standards. The Parliamentary standing committee on education, women, children, youth and sports, chaired by Congress MP Digvijaya Singh in its report on the necessity for reservations for OBC, SC, and ST students in private higher educational institutions, reviewed the latest students' strengths from O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat; Shiv Nadar University, Greater Noida; and Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS) Pilani. Citing various Supreme Court's orders, the Parliamentary standing committee on education, women, children, youth and sports, headed by Congress MP Digvijaya Singh in its report submitted to Parliament said that reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs in private educational institutions is 'constitutionally permissible.' To introduce reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in private higher education institutions, the Committee asked the government to follow the Right to Education (RTE) Act's 25% quota in private schools model – where fees are reimbursed by the government. Private educational institutions are currently not bound by law to implement reservation policies, as no statute mandates them. The panel called the absence of reservations in private educational institutions an 'impediment to attaining social justice in this country.' 'The committee, therefore, recommends that Article 15(5) of the Indian Constitution be implemented in full across the country through legislation by parliament. The committee recommends that 27%, 15% and 7.5% seats should be reserved for OBCs, SCs, and STs respectively in private higher educational institutions,' added the report. Article 15(5) of the Constitution, inserted through the 93rd Constitutional amendment in 2006, allows the government to mandate reservations for SC, ST, and OBC students in private educational institutions. In May 2014, in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the entirety of Article 15(5) of the Indian Constitution. Citing All-India Survey of Higher Education (AISHE) 2021-22 data, which lists 517 private universities, 240 central institutions and 445 state institutions, the panel noted that public institutions alone cannot meet demand, making private HEIs crucial for accommodating students from all sections of society. Congress general secretary (communications) Jairam Ramesh in a statement said it is 'no longer possible to ignore' the demand of SC, ST and OBC communities for reservations in private higher education. Stating that the panel report has given 'renewed impetus' to the demand which was also mentioned in the party's 2024 'Nyay Patra' manifesto, he said, 'The ball is now in the Modi government's court.'
Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
Who is Rajesh Sakriya? Meet man and passionate dog lover behind the attack on Delhi CM Rekha Gupta
In a shocking incident, Rajesh Sakriya, a 41-year-old from Rajkot, Gujarat, attacked Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta during a public hearing on wearing. His family says he is a devoted dog lover who was deeply disturbed by the Supreme Court's recent order to capture stray dogs in the Delhi-NCR area and relocate them to shelters. Let's find out who Rajesh Sakriya is. According to NDTV, the family of the accused revealed that the man loves dogs, and he was angry after the Supreme Court's order against stray dogs. He left for Delhi as soon as he heard about the order. Delhi CM slapped, pushed amid the stray dog order At the Jan Sunwai event held at the Chief Minister's Civil Lines camp office, Sakriya is said to have given some papers to Rekha Gupta before abruptly grabbing her hand and attempting to pull her. Although Gupta was not seriously hurt, Delhi BJP president Virendra Sachdeva stated that she was 'shaken' but unharmed. He refuted claims that the Chief Minister was slapped or struck, describing the incident as more of a struggle when the man attempted to pull her. SHOCKING🚨Attack on CM Rekha Gupta ji. Public outrage grows after theCitizens suspect a deeper political conspiracy behind the incident, demanding transparency and swift justice. Who is the Kejruddin he is referring to??🔎 Questions are being raised, but answers are still… Who is Rajesh Sakriya? According to News18, the eyewitnesses quoted them as saying that around 8 am, the man approached Gupta with a document, shouted at her and then allegedly slapped her, hurled abuses and even pulled her hair. Security staff promptly stepped in, and the Chief Minister was immediately taken to the hospital. The attacker was later identified as Rajesh Bhai Khimji Bhai Sakriya from Rajkot, Gujarat, and is now being questioned by the Delhi Police. This alarming incident has sparked serious concerns about the chief minister's security measures and has prompted intense political responses from various parties. According to HT, some accounts suggest Sakriya also wanted to seek the CM's help for a relative who had been arrested. However, multiple reports indicate an alternative motive. These sources suggest that Sakriya attended the public meeting to request assistance from the chief minister regarding a relative who had been arrested and detained in Tihar Jail. It is believed he was carrying legal documents, although Delhi Police have yet to issue an official statement.
