Latest news with #DivisionBench
The Hindu
4 days ago
- General
- The Hindu
Not every parent is like Justice Leila Seth, who supported same-sex relationships, rues Madras High Court
Our society is still conservative, and not every parent is like Justice Leila Seth (former Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court who openly supported her gay son); however, that should not be a reason for the police to deny security to LGBTQIA+ couples facing threats, the Madras High Court has said. A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan made the observation while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by a 25-year-old woman from Tirupattur against the illegal detention of her partner by the latter's parents at their residence in Vellore district. The judges allowed the detainee, also a major, to go with the petitioner after she confirmed that her parents had confined her at their residence against her will. Justice Swaminathan also gave ₹1,000 from his personal funds for the conveyance expenses of the same-sex couple. Use of word 'queer' The Divsion Bench also expressed reservations over the usage of the expression 'queer' to describe persons whose gender identity or sexual orientation was outside societal norms and said, there was nothing strange or odd about such inclinations and therefore, the usage was not appropriate. 'We feel certain discomfort in employing the expression 'queer.' Any standard dictionary defines this word as meaning 'strange or odd.' To a homosexual individual, his/her/their sexual orientation must be perfectly natural and normal... Why then should they be called queer?' the judges wondered. Censuring the police for having forced the detainee to go with her parents when a complaint was lodged with them, the court held that the government officials, the jurisdictional police in particular, would be duty-bound to respond to complaints of threats or harassment received from members of the LGBTQIA+ community. 'We also restrain the detenu's natal family members from interfering with her personal liberty. We issue a writ of continuing mandamus to the jurisdictional police to afford adequate protection to the detenue as well as the petitioner as and when required,' the judges ordered. Expressing their inability to convince the parents of the detainee to accept the relationship between their daughter and the habeas corpus petitioner, the Bench said, 'But the law is very clear. All individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity, possess the right to universal enjoyment of human rights.' 'Same-sex couples can form family' Authoring the verdict, Justice Swaminathan also wrote: 'Same-sex couples 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 petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family.' They also referred to efforts taken by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court to improve the conditions of the LGBTQIA+ community and said, the judge had approved a deed of familial association that purported to recognise the civil union entered into between LGBTQIA+ partners.
The Hindu
5 days ago
- General
- The Hindu
HC sets aside local court's gag order against media houses
Telangana High Court had set aside a gag order passed by a local court here against some newspapers, TV channels, web portals and media organisations directing them not report any defamatory content against Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Limited company and its management. A bench of Justices T. Vinod Kumar and P. Sree Sudha, allowing a batch of three appeals filed by media organisations, said the trial court's ad-interim ex-parte injunction order was 'unreasoned'. The said order was contrary to the mandate under Civil Procedure Code and hence impermissible, the Division Bench said. While passing such direction without issuing notices to the opposite parties, the court should record reasons as to why such order should be passed. The trial court passed the order but did not specify the time within which the respondents can get it vacated. This had deprived the appellants' right to file counter affidavit, the Bench observed. The two-judge bench observed that gag orders should be scrutinized though they were meant to maintain the integrity of legal proceedings. The courts should ensure that such gag orders did not infringe upon the fundamental rights like the right to free speech. These rights can be curtailed only in accordance with Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. Citing a Supreme Court verdict, the Division Bench noted that 'freedom of speech and expression was construed to include the freedom to circulate one's views by words of mouth or in writing or through audio-visual instrumentalities. This included the right to propagate one's views through the print media or any other communication channel like radio or television subject to reasonable restrictions. The Bench also noted that the company filed the suits for damages nearly a year after the publication of news. The company also suppressed the fact that it had filed another suit in a court at Khammam seeking similar relief. This amounted to clear abuse of the process of law, the verdict said. Since the gag order was passed without adhering to established legal principles, it cannot be sustained, the Bench said.
The Hindu
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Madras High Court upholds night ban on online real money games in Tamil Nadu
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (June 3, 2025) upheld the validity of a ban imposed by Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (TNOGA) on playing Real Money Games (RMG) between 12 midnight and 5 a.m. It also refused to interfere with requirements such as mandatory Aadhaar verification for playing the RMG. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by online gaming companies and others to declare as unconstitutional Section 5(2) read with 14(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act of 2022. The petitioners had challenged the two legal provisions since they empower the TNOGA to impose restrictions such as time, monetary and age limits for playing RMG. The litigants had also urged the court to declare as null and void certain provisions of the TNOGA (RMG) Regulations, 2025. Denying any kind of relief to them, the Division Bench held the State legislature was fully competent to enact a law governing online games by invoking Entry 6 (public health and sanitation) and Entry 26 (trade and commerce within the State) of List II (State list) in the seventh schedule to the Constitution. 'It is a well known fact that so far as online real money games such as rummy and poker, it has (sic) created public heath risks in the State of Tamilnadu. This is elaborated in the expert committee reports whereby these games have posed serious mental and physical health risks to the citizens in the State,' the judges wrote. They agreed with Advocate General (AG) P.S. Raman and TNOGA counsel B. Arvind Srevatsa that the question of repugnancy would not arise at all in the present case since the State had not invoked any of the entries in List III (concurrent list of subjects on which both the Parliament as well as the State legislatures could enact laws). The court also recorded AG's submission that the night ban on RMG had been imposed based on research findings that self-control would be much lower and the dopamine levels, linked to reward-seeking behaviour, would be much higher during night hours thereby making real money gaming more addictive. On his part, Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak, representing the Director General of Police/Head of Police Force, told the Division Bench that as many as 47 death by suicides, due to addiction to online games, had been reported in Tamil Nadu between 2019 and 2024 and it was reason enough for the State to regulate RMG. 'This court concurs with the reasons adduced by the State Government for regulating online RMGs. The adverse effects are much larger to the people than the need for securing the individual right to free trade. Regulation becomes a priority to ensure the safety and protection of the general public,' the judges observed. Disadvantages of playing games of skill online Disagreeing with the argument of online gaming companies that there was hardly any difference between playing games of skill, such as rummy and poker, in person or through online mode, the court said, there were definitely certain risks involved when playing the games of skill through online mode. Authoring the verdict, Justice Subramaniam said, when playing the games in physical mode, the players get to read each others' mind even by the slightest hand movement, body language and facial expressions. However, they get to lose this advantage while playing the games of skill through online mode. In online mode, 'the players may not even know against whom the game is played... So it is imperative that the government take adequate steps to streamline and regulate these unexplored waters to ensure fair play and secure the physical and financial safety of the players indulging in these online RMGs,' the Bench said. The court also held it did not find any reason to dilute the Aadhaar requirement since it provides for two-step authentication to confirm that the RMG players were 18 years and above. Further, the scope for manipulation/deceit was comparatively lesser in the Aadhaar verification process than others, it said. Our country is distinct from the rest of the world The Division Bench also rejected the contention of online gaming companies that the State could not adopt a paternlistic attitude and restrict their right to trade and commerce just because of some random suicides involving individuals who could not have control over their actions. 'Our country is built on a social and cultural fabric which is distinct from the rest of the world. A random comparison with the rights or laws prevalent in other countries cannot be blindly applied here... Protecting rights of the people is first and foremost as derived from our Constitution. Hence, laws and policies must primarily be focused towards this ideal,' the judges concluded. (Assistance for overcoming suicidal thoughts is available on the State's health helpline 104, Tele-MANAS 14416. and Sneha's suicide prevention helpline 044-24640050)
The Hindu
28-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Kerala HC upholds cooperative society Act amendment
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Monday upheld a section that was incorporated into the Kerala Cooperative Society Act that barred members of managing committees of credit societies such as State cooperative bank, service cooperative banks, and primary agricultural society from contesting to their respective committees for more than three consecutive terms. The court had earlier this year stayed a single judge's order that struck down as unconstitutional such a section incorporated into the Act. The State government had appealed against the single judge's verdict. The Division Bench found validity in the argument that irregularities might occur if a person occupied the same post for long, especially since financial institutions in the cooperative sector in Kerala handled huge sums of money. It was in this situation that the Act was amended. Many cooperative institutions that were unable to payback fixed deposits of customers had members who were serving over three consecutive terms, it said.
The Hindu
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why did Madras High Court stay laws taking away T.N. Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors?
The story so far: The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed a series of Bills for amending the laws applicable to various State-run universities. The primary aim of the amendments was to transfer from the Governor (in his/her capacity as the Chancellor) to the State government, the power to appoint Vice Chancellors to those universities. When the Governor sat over the Bills, without granting assent, for long, the State government approached the Supreme Court and obtained an order on April 8, 2025. Taking serious note of the enormous delay in grant of assent, the top court ordered that the Bills would be deemed to have been granted assent. By virtue of the Supreme Court's order, the amendment Bills became Acts. Subsequently, Kutty alias K. Venkatachalapathy, an advocate based in Tirunelveli, filed a public interest litigation petition before the Madras High Court on May 12, 2025, challenging the constitutional validity of those amendment Acts. A summer vacation Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan entertained the PIL petition and passed an interim order on May 21, 2025. The Bench stayed the operation of the amendment Acts to the extent to which they take away the power of appointment of Vice Chancellors from the hands of the Chancellor and vest the same in the State government. What is the reasoning given by the Division Bench for staying the amended laws? Authoring the verdict for the Division Bench, Justice Swaminathan pointed out that the amendment Acts do not make any change to the position of the Governor being the Chancellor of State universities. They only take away the Chancellor's power to appoint Vice Chancellors to the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Anna University, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and so on. The Bench found the amendment Acts to be repugnant to Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018. It pointed out that the UGC Regulations clearly state that only the Visitor/Chancellor could appoint a Vice Chancellor from among names recommended by a search-cum-selection committee and therefore, the amendment Acts conferring such a power on the State government, instead of the Governor, were directly in conflict with 2018 Regulations. Can UGC Regulations prevail over State Acts? The Division Bench said, the Supreme Court had already confirmed the primacy of the UGC Regulations over the State laws. In Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi versus State of Gujarat (2022), the top court had said: 'It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Sections 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the UGC Act every rule and regulation made under the said Act, shall be laid before each House of Parliament. Therefore, being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations become part of the Act.' A Bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagaratna of the Supreme Court had also observed: 'In case of any conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation, the Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution as the subject 'education' is in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, any appointment as a Vice-Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto.' The ruling was subsequently followed by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli in State of West Bengal versus Anindya Sundar Das wherein they wrote: 'In view of the decision in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi, even if the provisions of the Act allowed the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State Government, it would be in violation of the UGC Regulations. The Regulations become part of the statute framed by Parliament and will prevail.' After citing two more Supreme Court verdicts on the same lines, the Division Bench led by Justice Swaminathan said: 'When repugnancy between the impugned amendment Acts and the UGC Regulation is obvious and admitted, it is our judicial duty to apply the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in as many as four recent decisions.' Do courts have power to stay the operation of Acts? On the next question as to whether a court could stay the operation of laws passed by the legislature, Justice Swaminathan said, the answer lay in Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil versus State of Maharashtra. In that judgement, the Supreme Court had said: 'Normally an interim order is not passed to stultify statutory provisions. However, there is no absolute rule to restrain interim orders being passed when an enactment is ex facie unconstitutional or contrary to the law laid down by this Court.' Justice Swaminathan also recalled that the Supreme Court itself had on January 12, 2021 stayed the operation of the three farm laws, passed by the Parliament, which led to a national outcry. 'Interestingly, Shri (senior counsel representing the Tamil Nadu Higher Education department in the present PIL petition), who is now opposing the grant of interim relief was the counsel for a set of petitioners therein and welcomed the proposal to stay the implementation of the farm laws,' the judge wrote. Can a summer vacation bench pass such orders? Though Advocate General P.S. Raman as well as Mr. Wilson had urged the Division Bench to grant suffiicient time for the State government to file its counter affidavit and not take up the stay application for hearing during summer vacation sitting, the Division Bench rejected their plea. 'It is true that the High Court is on vacation and that we are sitting as Vacation Bench Judges. To us, it should not make any difference. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India has observed that court vacation sittings should be rechristened 'partial working days'. We take inspiration from the said observation. Judges can be on vacation, courts should not be on vacation. Access to justice should always be available. When an advocate complains that an unconstitutional legislation has been passed, we cannot shut our eyes. That is why we propose to intervene then and there,' the Bench said. Pointing out that they had granted a week's time for the State to file its written response, the Bench observed: 'The unconstitutionality and repugnancy vitiating the impugned (under challenge) amendment Acts is so glaring and obvious that we cannot shut our eyes. We are convinced that the impugned amendments are ex-facie unconstitutional. If an unconstitutional process is allowed to proceed, it would cause irreparable injury and public interest would suffer.' Does the High Court order amount to reviewing Supreme Court's verdict in Governor's assent case? The Division Bench, further, took strong exception to an argument that the High Court's interference with the amendment Acts would virtually amount to reviewing Supreme Court's April 8, 2025 verdict in Governor's assent case. 'Shri made a preposterous submission that we were virtually reviewing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Tamil Nadu versus The Governor of Tamil Nadu. No submission can be more outrageous than this. We are mindful of our position. We know that we have to give the highest respect to any decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We do not need lectures from Shri on this score. We believe in judicial discipline. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision was not concerned with the constitutionality of the impugned provisions.' The Bench went on to state: 'When the learned Advocate General at one point claimed that the petitioner's Senior Counsel is merely reiterating the contentions advanced in the said decision (April 8, 2025 ruling), we called upon the learned Advocate General to draw our attention to the relevant paragraphs, where the contentions now advanced stood rejected. The learned Advocate General made a vain attempt and subsequently gave up this objection altogether.' 'When we notice that the impugned amending Acts fall foul of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are unable to mechanically adjourn the proceedings. It is this primary consideration that impels us to grant interim relief,' the Bench concluded.
