Latest news with #MadrasHighCourt
News18
an hour ago
- Politics
- News18
Misconduct In Matrimonial Life Can Cost Government Job Too, Says Madras High Court
Last Updated: A public servant is expected to maintain honesty, integrity and good conduct both inside the office and in the society, the court observed The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court recently observed that misconduct arising from personal matrimonial disputes, too, could be grounds for termination in government service, including contractual appointments. The judgment came in an appeal filed by the Executive Secretary of the District Health Society, Ramanathapuram, and other officials, who had challenged a 2018 single-judge order that reinstated KS Subha Karuthukhan, a dental assistant, who was disengaged following his involvement in a criminal case related to a matrimonial dispute. Karuthukhan had been working on a contractual basis at the Government Upgraded Primary Health Centre in Bogaloor. His services, originally for a one-year period, had been renewed periodically until 2017, when the authorities terminated his engagement following his implication in a criminal matter. The single judge bench, while ruling in his favour in 2018, had held that involvement in a matrimonial case should not become a roadblock for someone serving in a government post, particularly on a contractual basis. However, a division bench comprising Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Dr AD Maria Clete disagreed with this interpretation. Referring to the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973, the court held that misconduct, even in personal relationships, can be considered a valid basis for departmental action. The bench emphasised that government employees—permanent or contractual—are expected to maintain integrity and good conduct not just within the office, but also in society. 'A public servant is expected to maintain honesty, integrity, and good conduct both inside the office and in the society," the court noted, underlining that such standards are not limited to official duties alone. Further, since the respondent's contract had already expired in 2017, the court said there was no question of reinstatement. The appeal was allowed, and the previous writ order was set aside. First Published: June 20, 2025, 18:22 IST
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- General
- New Indian Express
Not necessary for woman to get husband's signature for applying passport: Madras HC
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has held that it is not necessary for a woman to get the permission of her husband and take his signature before applying for a passport before the authority. Justice N Anand Venkatesh gave the ruling in a recent order while disposing of a petition filed by Revathy. She sought a direction to the authorities to issue a fresh passport without insisting signature from her husband in a time bound manner. The case of the petitioner was that she got married in the year 2023 and that there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties which resulted in her husband filing a petition before a local court, seeking for the dissolution of the marriage. This petition was pending. The petitioner, applied for a passport in April this year before the Regional Passport Office (RPO) in the city. It was not processed and when enquired, the petitioner was informed that she must obtain the signature of her husband in Form-J and only thereafter, the application will be processed by RPO. The RPO also took into consideration the pending dispute between the petitioner and her husband before the Court. It was under these circumstances, she filed the present petition.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- General
- Hindustan Times
Not necessary for woman to get husband's signature for applying passport: HC
Chennai, The Madras High Court has held that it is not necessary for a woman to get the permission of her husband and take his signature before applying for a passport before the authority. Justice N Anand Venkatesh gave the ruling in a recent order while disposing of a petition filed by Revathy. She sought a direction to the authorities to issue a fresh passport without insisting signature from her husband in a time bound manner. The case of the petitioner was that she got married in the year 2023 and that there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties which resulted in her husband filing a petition before a local court, seeking for the dissolution of the marriage. This petition was pending. The petitioner, applied for a passport in April this year before the Regional Passport Office in the city. It was not processed and when enquired, the petitioner was informed that she must obtain the signature of her husband in Form-J and only thereafter, the application will be processed by RPO. The RPO also took into consideration the pending dispute between the petitioner and her husband before the Court. It was under these circumstances, she filed the present petition. In his order, the judge said that in the considered view of this court, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking a passport has to be processed independently. "It is not necessary for a wife to get the permission of her husband and take his signature before applying for a passport before the authority", the judge added. He said this insistence made by the RPO shows the mindset of the society in treating women who were married as if they were chattel belonging to the husband. It was quite shocking that the passport office was insisting for the permission of the husband and his signature in a particular form in order to process the application submitted by the petitioner for the passport. Already the relationship between the petitioner and her husband was in doldrums and the RPO was expecting the petitioner to get the signature of the husband. Virtually, the RPO was insisting the petitioner to fulfill an impossibility, the judge added. The judge said the petitioner after marriage does not lose her individuality and a wife can always apply for a passport without the permission or signature of the husband in any form. "The practice of insisting for permission from the husband to apply for a passport, does not augur well for a society which is moving towards woman emancipation. This practice is nothing short of male supremacism", the judge added.. The judge directed the RPO to process the application submitted by the petitioner and issue a passport in her name on her satisfying the other requirements. This process shall be completed within four weeks, the judge added.
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Madras High Court initiates suo motu contempt against T.N. Chief Secretary Muruganandam, his predecessor Shiv Das Meena
The Madras High Court, on Friday (June 20, 2025), issued statutory notices to incumbent Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary N. Muruganandam and his predecessor Shiv Das Meena (thus retired) in suo motu contempt of court proceedings initiated against them and directed both of them to appear before the court on July 21. Justice Battu Devanand passed the orders after being prima facie convinced that the two officials had failed to comply with an order passed by the court on September 19, 2023 in true letter and spirit and had attempted to show compliance only after the court directed the High Court Registry to register the suo motu contempt petition. It was while disposing of a batch of three writ petitions in 2023 that Justice Devanand had directed the Chief Secretary to constitute a committee for recommending necessary amendments to the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023 since they suffered from various infirmities. The judge had also ordered that the committee should consider the issue of fixing a time frame for providing compassionate employment to the dependants of government employees who die in service and consider the possibility of maintaining a district wise list of dependants eligible for compassionate appointment. Then, the judge had also directed the Chief Secretary to file an action taken report before the court within three months. However, on June 5, 2025 while hearing another writ petition related to compassionate employment, the judge learnt that the Chief Secretary had not complied with the orders passed by him way back in 2023. Therefore, he directed the High Court Registry to register a suo motu contempt of court petition against all officers who had held the post of Chief Secretary since September 19, 2023. Accordingly, the Registry registered the contempt petition against Mr. Meena and Mr. Muruganandam and listed it for admission on Friday. The judge was informed that Mr. Meena had served as the Chief Secretary from September 2023 (when the court order was passed) till August 19, 2024 when he got appointed as the Chairperson of Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) and that Mr. Muruganandam had been holding the post since then. When the contempt petition was heard on Friday, Additional Advocate General M. Suresh Kumar submitted a Government Order issued on June 11, 2025 constituting a committee, as ordered by the High Court in 2023, for recommending amendments to the rules related to compassionate appointments. However, expressing dissatisfaction over the G.O. having been issued only after the High Court ordered registration of the suo motu contempt petition, the judge decided to proceed with the matter and issued statutory notices to both the officers requiring their presence before the court after 30 days.
India Today
7 hours ago
- Politics
- India Today
High Court pauses ED action against film producer in Tamil Nadu liquor scam
The Madras High Court, on Friday, halted all proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against film producer Aakash Baskaran. The court also directed the investigation agency to return all materials seized from ED raided multiple locations linked with Baskaran, and his associate, Vikram Ravindran, on May 16, in connection with the alleged scam in Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac). The ED's search and seizure operations at multiple premises were part of the intensified probe into the Tasmac a film producer at Dawn Pictures, came under the ED's scanner due to his alleged proximity to the ruling DMK party, specifically Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin. His name emerged in connection with the alleged siphoning off of funds in the Tasmac scam. The Madras High Court questioned the legal foundation of the ED's actions against Baskaran and Ravindran. The Division Bench comprising Justices MS Ramesh and V Lakshminarayan held that the authorisation for the raids appeared to be prima facie beyond the ED's court also noted that the materials relied upon by the agency lacked any incriminating content justifying such coercive measures. The judges underscored that sealing premises in the absence of the occupants — without recording the presence of any material evidence — violated the scope of Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), mere act of sealing cannot be presumed as equivalent to seizure,' the bench observed, as quoted by Live Law, adding that such actions risked misleading implications about the agency's on May 22, the Supreme Court issued a stay on ED's investigation into Tasmac. A senior DMK leader viewed this as a welcome move, stating it provides relief not just for Tamil Nadu but for all non-BJP states. The Supreme Court order came after the Tamil Nadu government moved a petition challenging Madras High Court's Madras High Court's sharp observations on Friday came after Baskaran and Ravindran submitted that the ED had sealed their offices and homes in their absence, and that no seizure was recorded in their presence as mandated by law. In response, the ED claimed it had attempted to contact the petitioners multiple times, but they did not cooperate. However, the court held that this did not justify sealing premises without following due and Ravindran both stated they weren't named as accused in any registered Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR). This was confirmed by the ED's Special Public Prosecutor during the hearing, stated a report in the Indian court, noting this, directed the agency to return all seized materials and unseal the premises forthwith, reinforcing the principle that investigatory powers must remain within constitutional CASE OF ALLEGED TASMAC SCAMadvertisementThe ED's investigation stems from an alleged Rs 1,000 crore scam involving Tasmac. According to ED sources, distilleries under-reported expenses and issued bogus invoices — particularly for bottle manufacturing — in order to syphon unaccounted cash. These funds were allegedly used to pay bribes for securing favourable supply filed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) between 2016 and 2021 form the basis of the PMLA ED, on March 6 and 8, conducted extensive raids targeting Tasmac's top officials, including Managing Director S Visakan, as well as private individuals suspected to be beneficiaries of the scheme. Aakash Bhaskaran's name surfaced due to alleged investments of diverted funds into the film industry, prompting the May 16 raids at locations associated with him and Ravindran.
