Latest news with #N.AnandVenkatesh
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- Health
- The Hindu
Madras High Court steps in to safeguard twin foetuses of surrogate mother
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (July 29, 2025), invoked its parens patriae jurisdiction in favour of 19-week-old twin foetuses of a surrogate mother and decided to rectify a significant procedural lapse committed by their intending parents as well as the treating hospital before commencing the surrogacy process. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh took upon himself the responsibility of issuing the 'parentage order' required to be obtained by the intending couple/intending woman and the surrogate mother, from a court of the first class magistrate or above, as mandated under Section 4(iii)(a)(II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act of 2021. Stressing upon the usage of the words 'or above' in the legal provision, the judge agreed with advocate A. Shabnam Banu that the High Court too could issue the 'parentage order' in exceptional cases where the interests of the unborn babies, the surrogate mother as well as the intending parents had to be safeguarded. He directed the intending parents and the surrogate mother, involved in the case before him, to appear before the Master court, which functions in the High Court buildings, on August 1 for the purpose of recording their statements with respect to compliance of other procedures such as obtaining insurance coverage. He decided to pass further orders on the writ petitions filed by the intending couple as well as the treating hospital, after receipt of recorded statements from the Master court, on August 7. In the meantime, the hospital was directed to respond to a notice issued to it by the health department and submit a copy in the court. The judge pointed out that though the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act came into force on January 25, 2022, the statutory rules under it were framed much later and so, most people were still unaware of the procedures prescribed under it and its requirements were yet to percolate into the system. What is a parentage order? Section 4(iii)(a)(II) of the Act categorically states that no surrogacy clinic should initiate the surrogacy process unless the intending couple/intending woman and the surrogate mother obtain a 'parentage order' which shall serve as the birth affidavit regarding the custody of the surrogate child/children after birth. The judge said, before issuing the 'parentage order,' the courts generally satisfy themselves that the intending parents/intending woman do not have any child, either born naturally or through adoption/surrogacy, and that the woman was incapable of having a child naturally due to a medical condition. The courts also ascertain whether the woman who had come forward to bear the foetus was willing to be a surrogate mother for the intending couple and that she had the consent of her husband too, if she was married. Further, she must undertake not to claim parental custody of the baby after he/she is born. The surrogate mother should also agree that the birth certificate could be granted in favour of the intending parents and the latter must also make a statement before the court that they would not abandon the child/children, born through surrogacy, for any reason whatsoever. Further, all parties concerned must assure the court that there was no commercial surrogacy involved and that sufficient insurance coverage too had been taken in favour of the surrogate mother for a period of 36 months to cover the postpartum delivery complications. Therefore, the 'parentage order' was a very important document aimed at declaring the intending couple as the lawful parents of the child/children to be born and it was essential to obtain it before the surrogacy process could be commenced by the treating hospital. The procedural lapse In the present case, the surrogacy process had been initiated without complying with the legal requirement, by Chennai-based GG Hospital which was a pioneer in fertility research. Its counsel contended the hospital had committed a 'bona fide mistake' without giving due attention to the provisions of the new law. The hospital intimated the failure to obtain 'parentage order' to the intending couple only on May 30, 2025 and by that time, the embryo transfer had taken place and the twin foetuses inside the surrogate mother's womb were already 11-weeks old, the court was told. To ensure the efforts taken by the court in the present case to safeguard the bodily autonomy of the surrogate mother and the interests of the unborn babies must not be misused by others in future, Justice Venkatesh made it clear his order could not be cited as a precedent.
The Hindu
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Protection from revealing identity must be extended to all victims of sexual offences; not just rape and POCSO Act cases, T.N. govt. tells Madras HC
State Public Prosecutor (SPP) Hasan Mohamed Jinnah on Tuesday suggested to the Madras High Court the existing statutory as well as judicial bar on revealing the identity of victims of rape and child sexual offences must be extended to victims of all kinds of sexual offences. Appearing before Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, the SPP said, the judicial magistrates in the State could also henceforth direct the police to submit the First Information Reports (FIRs), related to all kinds of sexual offences, only in sealed covers in order to prevent disclosure of identity. The SPP pointed out Section 72 (a corresponding provision to Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) prescribes a two year prison term for those who print or publish any matter which had revealed the identity of victims of select offences. Section 72 states the identity of the victims of rape, gang rape, sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during separation, sexual intercourse by a public servant by misusing official authority and sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means should not be printed or published. Further, the Supreme Court in the famous Nipun Saxena versus Union of India case, decided in December 2018, had ordered that the identity of victims of rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act offences should not disclosed in print, electronic as well as social media. The top court further ordered that FIRs related to such offences should not be made available in the public domain and that the police must keep all documents, containing the identity of the victim, in a sealed cover. The orders were issued to all States and Union Territories in the country. Mr. Jinnah suggested this protection need not be confined only to victims of rape and POCSO offences and that it could be extended to victims of all kinds of sexual offences. He made the submission during the hearing of a writ petition filed by a woman advocate against circulation of her private videos in the internet. Representing her, senior counsel Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam told the court the Union Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Home Affairs and Electronics and Information Technology had convened a national conference on 'Making Cities Cyber Secure' in New Delhi on July 18, 2025. The conference had brought together key stakeholders to address growing cybersecurity challenges and discussed the appointment of Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs). Mr. Rajaratnam said, the CISOs could serve as nodal officers to help women whose private images and videos reach the internet. After recording the submissions made by the SPP and the senior counsel, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh granted time till August 5 for the Ministry of Home Affairs to come up with a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to be followed for assisting women facing agony due to cyber threats. During the course of hearing of the case, the judge said: 'Though sexually explicit private videos of men also get circulated on the internet, no man ever bothers about that. It is the only the women who suffer because of the way in which the society treats them and makes them feel ashamed.'
The Hindu
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Madras High Court orders reissue of NTK leader Seeman's lost passport
Observing that politicians would naturally have criminal cases pending against them and that, by itself, cannot be a ground to deny passport, the Madras High Court on Monday (July 21, 2025) directed the Regional Passport Officer in Chennai to reissue the lost passport of Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) leader S. Seeman within four weeks. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh allowed a writ petition filed by the party leader and quashed an order passed by the RPO refusing to reissue the passport. He pointed out that a Division Bench of the High Court had already held that the permission of criminal courts is not required to seek the renewal/reissuance of passports. Individuals facing criminal cases would have to obtain the permission of the criminal court concerned only when they intend to travel abroad, the judge said and directed the RPO to process the petitioner's application and reissue the passport within a month if the application was in order otherwise. In his affidavit, Mr. Seeman stated he had been facing motivated criminal cases since 2008 and yet, he had been visiting many foreign countries to meet the Tamil diaspora. When the RPO refused to reissue his passport with additional pages in 2013, he had approached the High Court and obtained a favourable order. However, when he planned to visit some neighbouring countries in September 2024, he found that he had lost his passport. Immediately, a police complaint was lodged and a Lost Document Report (LDR) was obtained on October 10, 2024. Thereafter, he applied for the reissuance of the passport in November 2024. The RPO on January 31, 2025, refused to reissue the passport, the petitioner complained and contended he was not facing any serious charges and there was no likelihood of him absconding or evading the course of justice. Mere pendency of a few 'motivated criminal cases' could not be a reason to deny passport, he argued.
The Hindu
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Madras High Court restrains recitation of Nama Sankeerthanam in residential locality without Collector's permission
Observing that what could be divine music to the ears of some might actually turn out to be a nuisance for others, the Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 16, 2025) restrained the use of a residential house for the recitation of Nama Sankeerthanam (congregational chanting of the names of Hindu Gods) unless the Collector grants permission for using the premises as a prayer hall. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said, the law should apply equally to all, and that no religious group could use such premises for congregational prayers without the Collector's nod. 'Peace is the best prayer and silence is the greatest prayer. The day people realise this truth, they will not disturb others by indulging in loud and noisy ways of praying to God,' the judge said. The observations were made during the hearing of a writ petition filed by Prakash Ramachandran of Krishnamachari Street at Radha Nagar in Chromepet, Chengalpattu district. The petitioner had complained that a private organisation named Global Organisation for Divinity (GOD) had opened its office on the residential premises belonging to his neighbour T.S. Subramanian. The petitioner had complained of Nama Sankeerthanam being recited on the premises, causing disturbance to other residents of the locality. However, the private respondents filed a counter affidavit claiming they had the consent of all the other neighbours for the recitation and that their religious rights had been safeguarded under Article 25 (freedom of religion) of the Constitution. The private respondents also contended that uttering the names of Gods would only help in bringing peace of mind and serve as a remedy for all troubles and sorrows. However, the judge said, any prayer should remain confined within the four walls of a house and not end up causing disturbance to others. He also said, it was not necessary for all the residents in a locality to come to the court complaining about disturbance. Referring to an order passed by him restraining the use of residential houses for Christian congregational prayers in Kanniyakumari district without obtaining the Collector's nod, the judge told the respondents' counsel: 'The same will apply here too. Except the change in the name of God, all other things are the same. How can you have Nama Sankeerthanam without Collector's nod?' When the counsel stated her clients had already made a representation to the Chengalpattu Collector seeking permission, the judge ordered the recitation must not take place in the residential locality until the Collector grants permission and directed the Inspector of Chitlapakkam police station to ensure the court order was complied with in letter and spirit.
The Hindu
15-07-2025
- The Hindu
Come up with simple mechanism to remove private images and videos of women from internet, Madras High Court directs Centre
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (July 15, 2025) directed the Centre to come up with a simple mechanism through which women could get their private images and videos removed from the internet and digital platforms, if they had been uploaded surreptitiously by unscrupulous elements, without compromising their identity. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh directed central government senior panel counsel A. Kumaraguru to develop a prototype after taking instructions from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) as well as the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on appointing a nodal officer for grievance redressal. The directions were issued on a writ petition filed by a woman advocate whose former partner had recorded their private moments without her knowledge and shared them on social media. The petitioner complained the images and videos had landed on several porn sites too thereby causing great amount of agony to her. Senior counsel Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam told the judge though MeitY had complied with an interim order passed by him last week to block the websites in which her client's images and videos had been displayed, those websites had resurfaced again and continued to display the same images and videos. Stating the problem with the Internet was the presence of technically sound criminals, the judge said, it was not as if there was no technology available to prevent re-surfacing. 'The technology is always there but what is required is the inclination to put it to use for the benefit of the common man,' he added. The judge said, the system was so that it would work with its might and remove all traces from the Internet if the victim happened to be a daughter of a Minister of a judge but it does not show the same eagerness and energy if the victims happen to be common citizens with no connections whatsoever with the mighty and powerful. Justice Venkatesh said, technology such as tracing photo DNA must be put to best use so that women do not have to suffer silently because of increasing instances of their private images and videos getting shared on public platforms or being subjected to harassment under the threat of releasing those images in public. Judge raps police The judge also rapped the police for having mentioned the name of the woman advocate in the First Information Report (FIR) registered against her former partner on the basis of a complaint lodged by her. He wondered how the police could be so insensitive to disclose her identity in a public document. He directed the police to redact her name from the FIR forthwith and came down heavily on the police department for having made the victim watch the private images and videos along with seven male police personnel, after she lodged the complaint, in order to identify the perpetrator. 'Don't you have women police personnel well versed in cyber crime? Can't you ask those women personnel to deal with such cases? How can you make the victim sit along with seven male police personnel to watch those videos? Does it not amount to violating her right to dignity?' the judge asked. Stating investigation in offences against women must be done with a lot of sensitivity, the judge insisted on the appearance of State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah on the next hearing so that necessary instructions could be issued to the police department.
