Latest news with #V.Lakshminarayanan
The Hindu
4 days ago
- The Hindu
Madras High Court orders release of arrested lawyers, law students during GCC conservancy workers' protests
The Madras High Court on Thursday (August 14, 2025) ordered the release of four lawyers and two law students arrested by the Greater Chennai city police in connection with the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) conservancy workers' protests outside the Rippon Building. Also read: Chennai conservancy workers' protest highlights A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan ordered the release of advocates K. Bharathi, K. Suresh, Mohan Babu and R. Raj Kumar and law students Muthuselvan and Valarmathi on condition that they should not give interviews to the media. The Bench also restrained the lawyers as well as law students from issuing statements or posting any message on the social media in connection with the protests or the eviction of the protesters by the police during the intervening night between August 13 and 14, 2025. The interim order was passed on a habeas corpus petiton (HCP) filed by a fellow lawyer S. Vijay accusing the police of having illegally detained as many as five advocates and eight law students while evicting 930 conservancy workers protesting outside the GCC headquarters. During the hearing of the HCP, Additional Advocate General (AAG) J. Ravindran told the Court that the police had arrested only four lawyers and two law students and all other detainees were let free after a few hours of detention at different marriage halls in the city. When the Judges wanted to know the reason for their arrest, the AAG said First Information Reports (FIRs) had been booked for damaging government buses and assaulting a woman constable during the eviction process. He also played some video footage to the Judges on a tablet. After watching the videos, the Judges wrote: 'On a prima facie view, the persons accused of having caused rioting were arrested and confined inside the buses. In other words, the police appear to have already arrested the accused and the damage to the buses seems to have happened later.' The Judges also pointed out that the woman constable had only suffered simple injuries on her right hand and it had been recorded in her accident register that she had been assaulted by unknown persons. The register does not implicate the four lawyers and two law students. 'In light of our above observations, we are of the prima facie view that the detention of four lawyers and two law students by the police may be unlawful,' the Judges said and ordered their release since they had not been produced before a judicial magistrate for remand pursuant to their arrest. They also granted time till August 26, 2025 for the AAG to submit other materials to substantiate the charge against the lawyers and law students in question and directed the latter to not give interviews or issue statements till the next hearing of the case. Earlier, advocate M. Radhakrishnan played a video of woman lawyer Nilavumozhi too having been detained illegally in connection with the protests and assaulted brutally by the police personnel. He said, the video had gone viral in which the woman lawyer could be seen complaining about the brutality.
The Hindu
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Poverty prevents people from filing appeals, says Madras High Court; orders release of life convict citing parity
Observing that there are several reasons, including poverty, that prevent people from filing appeals before higher judicial forums, the Madras High Court has ordered the release of a convict in a dacoity-cum-murder case by according him the benefit of parity with his co-convicts, who had been released from prison by an order of the Supreme Court in 2018. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan concurred with the argument of advocate R. Sankarasubbu that if the convict Balu, alias D. Balasubramanian, had approached the top court along with the three co-convicts, there was every possibility of his sentence also having been reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The judges allowed a writ petition filed by the convict's wife Indira Gandhi, seeking the release of her husband on the ground of parity. They recorded the submission of Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak, who also did not dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court, in at least three cases, regarding the principle of extending parity to an unappealed convict. 'When the petitioner complains that her husband's constitutional right under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) had been violated, we cannot shrug off our duties and ask the petitioner to... prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court,' the judges wrote and pointed out that the criminal case was from the year 2002, and that more than two decades had passed since he was convicted. 'All that we are doing is performing our constitutional duty of rendering parity between A1, A2, A4 and the petitioner's husband. Our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are wide and they have been granted only to enable us to do justice. This court also has the inherent power and the jurisdiction, while dealing with situations as presented in the present case, to render justice and prevent manifest injustice,' the judges said. According to the prosecution, the convicts had robbed 4.7 kg of gold and 5.5 kg of silver from a jewellery shop after killing a person who was sleeping inside the shop. Though the petitioner's husband had not committed any overt act with respect to the murder, he too was convicted under Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code, which makes all members of a gang liable for punishment even if one of them had committed murder. Though the trial court had imposed only 10 years of imprisonment on the convicts, the High Court had enhanced their punishment to life imprisonment in 2010 while allowing a 2006 State appeal for enhancement of sentence. However, allowing a further appeal by three of the convicts, except the petitioner's husband, the Supreme Court had reduced their sentence to 10 years in 2018 and ordered their release. Hence, the petitioner had now approached the High Court, by way of a writ petition, seeking parity and obtained the relief.
The Hindu
6 days ago
- The Hindu
Girl injured after jumping from High Court building
The Madras High Court campus witnessed tense moments on Tuesday when a 15-year-old girl jumped from the first floor of the buildingafter the hearing of a case related to her custody. She was injured and immediately rushed to the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital (RGGH) in the High Court ambulance. The Neelankarai police in Chennai had secured the minor girl from Andaman islands and produced her before a Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan initially on August 8, 2025 following a habeas corpus petition (HCP) filed by her biological father who had divorced her mother. When the case was taken up again on Tuesday, the girl told the court that she wanted to go with her mother who also resides in the Andamans. However, after perusing a confidential report submitted by the mediation centre, the judges felt that it would not be conducive and safe for her to go back to the Andamans. The judges directed the police to admit her to the Government Children's Home for Girls at Kellys in Chennai and then take her to the Institute of Mental Health at Kilpauk for psychiatric evaluation. They also called for the evaluation report in a sealed cover by August 26, 2025. After the hearing was over and the orders were passed, the police brought the girl outside the court hall and as they were walking on the corridors, she tried to escape and in the process, jumped from the first floor by holding on to the serial lights that had been put up for the Independence Day celebrations. However, she lost balance and fell down. 'Immediately, she was rushed to the government hospital in the High Court ambulance. It appears to be an accident that occurred during the bid to escape from the police and not a suicide attempt, although only a proper inquiry would reveal the real reason,' said a lawyer. (Assistance for overcoming suicidal thoughts is available on the State's health helpline 104, Tele-MANAS 14416, Sneha's suicide prevention helpline 044-24640050 and Speak2Us helpline at 9375493754)
The Hindu
07-08-2025
- 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
14-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Madras High Court directs Puzhal Central Prison Superintendent to inform respective consulates about detention of foreigners
The Madras High Court has directed the Superintendent of the Central Prison at Puzhal near Chennai to report forthwith the detention of foreigners not only to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) but also to the consulates of their respective countries. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan pointed out that Rule 531 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 2024, requires Superintendents of all prisons to intimate the consulates concerned about the detention of foreigners, without any delay. However, they found that at least in three cases involving the detention of Sri Lankan nationals, the Superintendent of Puzhal Central Prison had neither informed the MEA nor the Sri Lankan Deputy High Commission in Chennai of their detention. It was only after the court took note of the issue, the Superintendent chose to inform the MEA, but it still failed to inform the Deputy High Comission. Since there was a mandatory requirement to do so, the judge ordered that the Superintendent must striclty adhere to Rule 531. The judges recorded the submission of Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak that the Superintendent shall immediately inform the respective consulates about the detention of not only the three writ petitioners C. Nalin Sathuranga, C. Sujanthan, and B. Pushparaj, but also other foreigners. Rule 531 also requires the Superintendent to permit the consulate officials to visit the prisoners, for the purpose of conversing with them and arranging for their legal representation, after obtaining government permission. Therefore, it was absolutely necessary to intimate them about the detention, the judges said. The interim order was passed on writ petitions filed by the three individuals seeking a direction to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, as well as the Superintendent of the Puzhal Central Prison, to arrange for consular visits and permit embassy grievance redressal mechanism. However, on finding that the preliminary requirement of intimating the consulates about the detentions had not been complied with so far, the judges directed the Superintendent to adhere to it forthwith, and report to the court on July 25, 2025.
