Latest news with #G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
The Hindu
06-07-2025
- The Hindu
Cheque bounce case acquittals can be challenged before district courts from July 7: Madras High Court
Victims in cheque bounce cases can henceforth file appeals, against judicial magistrates' acquittal orders, directly before the jurisdictional district courts without having to approach the Madras High Court seeking its leave to file the appeals against the acquittal of the accused. The Madras High Court's Registrar (Judicial) has issued a notification intimating lawyers and litigants that the High Court would not entertain petitions to grant leave, to file appeals, from Monday (July 7, 2025) in accordance with a judicial order passed Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan. While hearing two such leave petitions on June 30, 2025, the judge pointed out the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial versus A. Gnanasekaran (2025) had ruled victims in cheque bounce cases were entitled to file appeals as a matter of right without having to seek the leave of the High Court. The top court had pointed out the procedure of filing appeals, against acquittal orders passed by judicial magistrates, in the High Court, that too after obtaining its leave, had to be followed only in cases where the private complainants were not the victims in a criminal case. 'A person convicted of a crime has the right to prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a matter of right and not being subjected to any conditions. Similarly, a victim of a crime, whatever be the nature of the crime, unconditionally must have a right to prefer an appeal,' the Supreme Court had said. However, since the top court had not mentioned whether its decision should be given effect retrospectively or prospectively, Justice Ilanthiraiyan decided to give effect to it from July 7, 2025. 'The district courts are directed to entertain the appeals... from July 7, 2025 onwards,' he ordered. The judge also directed the High Court Registry to circulate his order to all district courts in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
Hans India
19-06-2025
- Hans India
Narrow escape for HC judges as Yercaud Exp hits iron rod
Chennai: Three sitting judges and two retired judges of the Madras High Court, along with hundreds of other passengers on board the Yercaud Superfast Express, had a miraculous escape after the train ran over a heavy iron rail piece deliberately placed across the tracks near Sankagiri in Salem district. The train -- Yercaud Superfast Express (Train No. 22650) -- was en route from Erode to Chennai when the incident occurred around 9.45 p.m. on Tuesday, shortly after the train had crossed Mavelipalayam and was approaching Magudanchavadi railway station. The train had departed Erode Junction at 9.01 p.m. Among the passengers were Justices N. Sathish Kumar, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, and Krishnan Ramasamy, as well as retired Justices K. Kalyanasundaram and M. Govindaraj. According to railway sources, the locomotive struck a 10-foot-long iron rod -- believed to be a piece of rail track -- which had been placed deliberately across the line near Kaligoundampalayam, in the Sankari block. The engine dragged the obstruction for nearly 300 metres before the loco pilot brought the train to a screeching halt, preventing what could have been a catastrophic derailment. As a result of the collision, the engine's brake lining jammed, rendering the locomotive inoperable. Fortunately, none of the coaches were affected, and no injuries were reported among the passengers. Upon inspection, the loco pilots found the iron rod wedged beneath the engine. Officials from the Salem Railway Division, the Railway Protection Force (RPF), and the local Magudanchavadi police rushed to the site. The obstruction was removed, and a relief engine was dispatched from Erode.
The Hindu
20-05-2025
- The Hindu
Impossible to compare fingerprints of the dead with Aadhaar database, UIDAI tells Madras High Court
It is impossible to compare the fingerprints of a deceased with the Aadhaar database and provide demographic information to the police for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of an unknown body, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has told the Madras High Court. In a counter affidavit filed before Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, the UIDAI said, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 imposes severe restrictions on sharing information. Further, there were technology constraints in culling out information about the dead, it added. The submissions were made in response to a writ petition (criminal) filed by the State of Tamil Nadu represented by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam Sub Division, Villupuram district, seeking a direction to the UIDAI to provide the demographic details of an unidentified body using its fingerprints. Central government senior panel counsel K. Srinivasamurthy said, UIDAI was a statutory body functioning under the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY). The object of the 2016 Aadhaar Act, as amended in 2019, was to empower residents of India with a unique identity proof. The UIDAI issues a 12-digit Aadhaar number after a person undergoes enrolment by submitting demographic as well as biometric information. The prime object of the Aadhaar Act was to ensure targeted delivery of government subsidies, benefits and services to the beneficiaries, the counsel said. Aadhaar not used to track other activities He also submitted a counter affidavit signed by UIDAI Deputy Director Priya Sreekumar who asserted that 'Aadhaar number is not used to track other activities of the resident' and that Chapter VI of the Aadhaar Act requires the UIDAI to maintain strict confidentiality with respect to individual records. She pointed out Section29(1) of the Act categorically states that no core biometric information, collected or created under the Act, should be shared with anyone for any reason whatsoever; or used for any purpose other than generation of Aadhaar numbers and authentication under the Act. The Deputy Director said, Section 33 (1) states only the identity information or authentication records (but not core biometric information) could be disclosed that too if a High Court or the Supreme Court passes a specific order for such disclosure after hearing the individual concerned as well as the UIDAI. The only provision which permits sharing of core biometrics too was Section 33(2) which could be invoked in the interest of national security in pursuance of a direction issued by an officer not below the rank of Secretary to Government of India if he/she had been specially authorised through a government order. Not suitable for forensic purposes Ms. Sreekumar also said, UIDAI does not collect biometric information (such as iris scan and fingerprints) based on technologies, standards or procedures suitable for forensic purposes and therefore, it would be impossible to cull out data related to an individual from sample fingerprints lifted from a body. 'The Aadhaar technology only permits biometric authentications which are done on a 1:1 basis (where one's biometric is matiched against its own biometrics for verification or authentication) for which it is necessary to have the Aadhaar number of an individual. There are technology constraints in matching the fingerpint collected on paper or other material with the Aadhaar database,' the Deputy Director added. 'In the light of the provisions of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and the technology constraints, it is most respectfully submitted that it is not possible for UIDAI to compare the sample fingerprints of the deceased with the fingerprint data of UIDAI and provide information to the petitioner,' she said. After taking the counter affidavit on file, the judge directed the High Court Registry to list the matter again on June 12 for further hearing.
