Latest news with #G.R.Swaminathan
The Hindu
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why can't Tamil Nadu government fulfil RTE obligation without waiting for central funds under Samagra Shiksha Scheme, asks Madras High Court
The Madras High Court on Thursday (August 7, 2025) wondered why Tamil Nadu government is not fulfilling its Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act obligation, of reimbursing private unaided schools which admit poor neighbourhood students under the Act, without waiting for central funds. A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan said, the reluctance on the part of the State government in fulfilling the financial obligation, without depending upon the Centre, would only give an impression as if the State was not interested in educating poor children under the RTE Act. The observations were made during the hearing of a contempt of court petition filed against School Education secretary B. Chandra Mohan and Director of Private Schools P. Kuppusamy for having failed to implement an order passed by the Division Bench in a public interest litigation petition on June 10, 2025. Special Government Pleader U.M. Ravichandran said the State government had preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court on Thursday (August 7, 2025) against the orders passed in the PIL petition. After recording his submissions, the Bench adjourned the hearing on the contempt plea to August 14, 2025. The PIL petition had sought a direction to the State government to commence the RTE admissions for the academic year 2025-26 without any delay and feared that the delay in reimbursing the fees to the private unaided schools for the previous academic years might affect the admissions this year. Disposing of the plea on June 10, the Division Bench had taken note that there was a tussle between the Centre and the State government due to the latter's reluctance to implement the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and it had led to complaints of the Centre withholding the funds due to the State. Then, the Bench also found that the State government had already approached the Supreme Court complaining about the Centre not having released Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS) funds to the tune of ₹2,151.59 crore which included the Centre's share towards the RTE component. After directing the Centre to consider delinking the RTE component, from the SSS funds, the Bench also issued a direction to the State government to reimburse the private unaided schools, which make admissions under the RTE Act, without waiting for the disbursement of central funds. 'The State government has an obligation to reimburse private unaided schools. Non-receipt of funds from the Union Government cannot be cited as a reason to wriggle out of this statutory obligation,' the court had observed while disposing of the PIL petition. It was alleging wilful disobedience of this order that the present contempt of court petition had been filed.
The Hindu
28-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Issue of advocate casting allegation against Justice Swaminathan goes to CJ
A Division Bench headed by Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday directed the High Court Registry to place before the Chief Justice the papers regarding advocate S. Vanchinathan accusing Justice Swaminathan of exhibiting caste bias. A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar had said Mr. Vanchinathan had been giving interviews to YouTube Channels accusing the judge of caste bias. On July 24, when he appeared before the court, he declined to answer to the question if he stood by his imputation, and instead sought a written questionnaire. A pre-cognisance notice was issued to him and he was directed to appear on July 28. The court said during the intervening weekend, a press conference was held and a statement was published on behalf of a few retired judges questioning the process adopted by the bench. 'We have to record our dismay as to how such interference with the judicial process can be made. Several assumptions which have no factual basis have been made. We characterise their approach as most unfortunate,' the judges said. Contending the proceedings had nothing to do with Mr. Vanchinathan's earlier complaint to the Chief Justice of India against the judge, the court said it issued the notice only because of the 'persistent campaign being conducted by Mr. Vanchinathan' in social media. 'We had not, till this moment, initiated any contempt action against Vanchinathan. That Vanchinathan has been slandering Justice Swaminathan is beyond dispute,' the court said. A video recording of one of the interviews of Vanchinathan was played in the court where such allegations were made. 'This interview is only a sample. There are scores of such YouTube videos.' The bench said it wanted to comply with the principles of natural justice before making a reference to the Chief Justice. 'Our intention was to close the matter if Vanchinathan indicated change of heart. He does not have any such intention. But he had been cleverly advised. He, therefore, declined to take any stand before us. His written reply is completely silent on the query raised in the notice,' the judges said. 'We judges have taken oath to discharge our judicial duties not only without favour but also without fear. When a judge disposes of a matter, the lawyer before him neither wins nor loses. It is the case that is won or lost. Lawyers and Judges belong to one large family. They are members of the legal community. When a Judge sits on the dais, he discharges his judicial duties as per his conscience and by strictly adhering to the judicial oath. He cannot be seen as carrying on his caste or religious labels while on the bench,' they added. 'If someone continues to have such a perception, he obviously has jaundiced eyes. The legal system provides for remedies and recourse has to be taken to them by persons aggrieved by individual decisions. Without doing so, launching communal campaigns on social media would eventually weaken the system itself. Time has come to regulate the level of discourse in social media. In the name of freedom of speech and expression, one cannot condone acts of contempt,' the bench said. The court felt the channels which rake in money by such slanderous campaigns would have to be taken head on. 'Lawyers who make such statements are guilty of professional misconduct. There is something called Laxman rekha which if crossed must invite peril,' the court observed. The judges said Mr. Vanchinathan had mobilised a group of lawyers and retired Judges to rush to his rescue. 'They have also passed reckless comments without waiting for today's outcome. Gratuitous appeals and advice have poured forth. We ignore them with the contempt which they deserve,' the judges said, adding, 'it is one thing to criticise judgments but entirely another to cast aspersions on judges.' Mr. Vanchinathan, in his reply, submitted that it was the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court who could take a call in the matter. 'We also have no doubt on this score,' the judges said, and directed the Registry to place the papers before the CJ for appropriate action.
The Hindu
03-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Arunthathiyar candidates can compete in SC general quota too: HC
An Arunthathiyar candidate can compete in the Scheduled Caste general category quota on merit basis and if he or she is selected, the sub-quota earmarked for Arunthathiyars will not be affected, said the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The most meritorious Arunthathiyar candidate shall not be adjusted against the SC (Arunthathiyar) vacancy in the first instance, observed a Division Bench of Justices G. R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar. The court was hearing an appeal preferred by E. Surya, belonging to the Hindu Pallan community. The Teachers Recruitment Board issued a notification in 2019 for the post of Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges and Special Institutions (Engineering/Non-Engineering). She had applied for the post of Lecturer (Information Technology) under the Scheduled Caste category. However, the two vacancies for the post were filled up by candidates belonging to SC (Arunthathiyar) community. The case of the appellant is that one Ms R, Jeyasudha, who scored more marks than her, ought to have been selected against the SC(A) category in the first instance. In that event, in the SC (General) vacancy, the appellant would have competed with others, all of whom had scored lower marks compared to her. Since Ms Jeyasudha was selected against SC (General) vacancy in the first instance itself, the appellant who is not an Arunthathiyar could not be considered for the remaining vacancy which had been reserved for a person belonging to the SC(A) category. She contended the procedure adopted by the recruiting agency was not in conformity with the statutory provisions. A Single Bench dismissed her petition. She preferred an appeal against the order. The Division Bench observed that reservation was introduced with the aim of advancing and giving adequate representation to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. It is well settled that candidates who make it on their own merit have to be adjusted against the General Category candidates. In other words, when vacancies are filled up, the open quota opens first and candidates irrespective of caste, sex etc., are allowed to compete based on merit. The meritorious candidates should be first selected as against the open quota vacancies. Only thereafter, selection has to be made for the vertical reservation category from among the remaining candidates belonging to that particular reserved category (vertical) based on merits, the court observed. It must then be seen if sufficient numbers of candidates to satisfy special reservation (horizontal reservation) have been selected. If not, the required number of special reservation candidates shall have to be accommodated as against social reservation categories by deleting the number of candidates therefrom. At any rate candidates who were selected against a post under the open quota shall not be adjusted against the reserved quota under vertical reservations, the court observed. When a reserved candidate can compete in the open quota on merit and his/her selection would not affect the number of vacancies earmarked for his/her group the same approach should be adopted in the case of sub-reservation also. The court consequently upheld the manner of selection made by the Teachers Recruitment Board.
The Hindu
27-06-2025
- Health
- The Hindu
‘Maternity period has to be counted as part of bond period'
Granting relief to a doctor, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the maternity period of 12 months has to be counted as part of the bond period and directed Thanjavur Medical College to return her certificates. The court was hearing an appeal filed by E. Krithikaa who obtained her MBBS degree in 2014. She was allotted a seat in MS (General Surgery) in Thanjavur Medical College for the academic year 2016-17 which was a three year course. As per the prospectus for admission to postgraduate courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges (2016-19), the candidate should sign a bond for a sum of ₹40 lakh with an undertaking that he/she would serve the State for a period of not less than two years. In addition, the candidate was required to submit the original educational certificates to the medical college. The appellant had signed the bond and also submitted her original certificates. After the appellant obtained her PG degree, she was appointed as Assistant Surgeon at Thittakudi Government Hospital in 2019. She reported for duty and served in the hospital for 12 months. Following her pregnancy, she went on maternity leave. Since she had served the government only for 12 months and not for 24 months of bond service, the hospital authorities declined to return her original certificates. A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar observed that the condition set out in the prospectus has to give way to the rights conferred on women under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The Supreme Court declared that women have a fundamental right to benefits arising out of the situation of maternity. Maternity leave was integral to maternity benefit and forms a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court observed that the appellant no doubt is not a government employee. She is only obliged to render bond service to the government for two years. But a regular State government employee is entitled to avail maternity leave for 12 months as per the amended Service Rules. The appellant was also entitled to the very same treatment applicable to any government employee. The fact that she was only in the service of the government without being a regular employee is irrelevant. When the fundamental right of the appellant is involved, she is entitled to the protective umbrella of not only Article 21 but also Article 14. Applying the legal fiction laid down in Kavita Yadav case, the appellant must be taken to have served the government even during her maternity period. In other words, the maternity period of 12 months has to be counted as part of the bond period, the court observed.
The Hindu
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Madras High Court Bench asks Registrar General to ensure former ACJ's daughter gets family pension
Pension has always been characterised as a matter of right and not charity or bounty. When it comes to extending the benefit to persons with intellectual disability, the authority must exhibit alacrity, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has observed. A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar held that the son/daughter of a pensioner who was a person with intellectual disability and fell within the scope of the pension rules should be disbursed with family pension on submission of a medical certificate evidencing his/her incapacity to earn livelihood without insisting on certificate denoting income from all sources. The sanction order should be passed without delay after documents mentioned in the statutory rules were submitted, the court observed while hearing the appeal preferred by the Principal Accountant General (A&E) against a Single Bench order, directing payment of family pension to a person with intellectual disability who was the son of a deceased government employee. The court was told that the order had been complied with. However, the appellant wanted certain strong remarks to be expunged, and the court expunged them. The court observed that at this juncture it was reminded of the daughter of one of the distinguished judges of the HC, who retired as its Acting Chief Justice. It was agonising to note that his daughter, a person with physical and intellectual disability, had not been sanctioned family pension even though more than a year had passed since her mother's demise. Her father passed away in 2020 and mother in 2024. Application for sanctioning family pension was submitted. The office of the appellant sought certain details and documents. It was furnished by her younger sister, the legal guardian. The admissibility report for family pension was forwarded to the Secretary of Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Justice) to obtain sanction from the President of India. Subsequently, a letter sought submission of the same set of documents, and the matter lay there, the court observed. 'We call upon the Registrar General of the Madras HC to liaison with the authorities concerned and ensure that the daughter of the former ACJ gets her family pension at the earliest,' the court directed. Referring to Rule 54(6) of CCS (Pension) Rules and Rule 49(6) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the court said a medical officer not below the rank of a civil surgeon must give a certificate setting out the mental or physical condition of the child. Nowhere was there any requirement to produce an income certificate noting income from all sources. In the present case, the appellant had insisted on furnishing such a certificate, the court observed. When the statutory rule itself contemplated certificates only from a Doctor/Medical Board stating that the son/daughter of a deceased employee by virtue of physical or intellectual disability could not earn a livelihood, the authority could not ask for anything more, the court observed.
