Madras HC split verdict in Habeas Corpus plea filed by Senthil Balaji’s wife against his arrest by ED: Decoding Justice Nisha Banu’s opinion
This report provides Justice Nisha Banu’s opinion in the Habeas Corpus plea.
This report provides Justice Nisha Banu’s opinion in the Habeas Corpus plea.
Madras High Court stated that the punishment given is grossly disproportionate to the offence and it has shaken the conscience of the Court.
This report provides Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy opinion in the Habeas Corpus plea.
The division bench of Madras High Court delivered a split verdict and referred the matter to the Chief Justice to place it before another judge.
The Court only expressed its prima facie view and final orders in the writ appeal on merits will be passed after hearing the parties in full, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. Therefore, the Senior Advocate was not prevented from placing his contentions to sustain the order of the Single Judge at the time of final hearing.
Due to non-payment of salary and non-consideration of petitioner’s representation for four years, all of his family members had suffered mentally and financially.
The habeas Corpus petition was filed in relation to the cash-for-jobs scam case, in which the Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK MLA V Senthil Balaji, among others, has been accused of accepting bribes from candidates in exchange of appointment to the State Transportation Corporation
As a Court of record, the High Court is attributed only with the power to punish for its contempt and the contempt of Courts Subordinate to it and not the Court which is superior to it.
The final report placed for scrutiny before the Public Prosecutor is not for the purpose of getting an opinion from the Public Prosecutor
In generality of marriages, the wife bears and rears children and minds the home. She thereby frees her husband for his economic activities. Since it is her performance of her function which enables the husband to perform his duties, thus she is entitled to share in its fruits.
Appointments of Archakas will have to be made in accordance with the Agamas, subject to the further caveat that the Agama that is followed is in conformity with the Constitutional mandates and it does not violate the same.
If the notifications are bad in law and they are liable to be quashed, the subsequent selection procedure that has been undertaken would also suffer from the same vice.
The Lawyers being homogeneous class, further creating divisions on any criteria including economic status or otherwise will result in losing faith and ordinary Lawyers will get frustrated, resulting young and talented Lawyers leaving the profession. It is the primary duty of the Judicial Institutions to provide a conducive atmosphere for all the practicing Lawyers enabling them to have utmost trust in the Judicial System.
S Megala, wife of V. Senthil Balaji, who has been arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement in a money laundering case, filed a habeas corpus petition, wherein the Madras High Court agreed to an urgent hearing, leading to the present SLP by ED before the Supreme Court.
Madras High Court reiterates that copyright can be claimed only in respect of the manner of expression of an idea or concept.
Madras High Court directed Savukku to file an affidavit of undertaking, that in future he shall guard himself against violating any orders passed by any Court, or even make any comments which may impinge the majesty of the Courts.
Considering the fact that Senthil Balaji is a public person, the YouTube videos and tweets only make various allegations against him in performance of his official duties. Further, most of the statements are already available in public domain.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The action came following the Supreme Court’s decision, wherein the Court allowed the appeals arising out of the order for de novo investigation and set aside the directions issued in the original petition for de novo investigation. Further, the Court allowed the ED to continue its investigation.
“It is for the Doctors to take a decision and continue the treatment by following the medical protocol. Contrarily, High Court cannot interfere with the opinions of the medical expert by acting as an expert body which is not desirable, and it will lead to excess exercise of powers of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution”