Search Judgments

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) Sections 4, 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6; Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 – Detention Order for Sexual Offender Section 2(ggg) – This Habeas Corpus Petition challenges the detention order passed against the detenu, Kannan, who was classified as a “Sexual Offender” under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

The petitioner, Kannan’s sister, argues that the 35-day lapse between the detenu’s arrest under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the detention order severs the necessary proximate link.

Further arguments include the detaining authority’s reliance on a bail order granted on default grounds in a similar case, lack of a pending bail application at the time of the detention order, and the failure to provide a translated copy of the accident register despite request.

The respondents argue that the delay in passing the detention order was due to administrative procedures for submitting the remand extension report and obtaining government approval.

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Section 1(3), 6, 6(16), 6(18), 6(20), 63 – This case involves a dispute regarding the administration of Arul Migu Vembiamman Thirukovil Trust. The appellant challenged the writ order, which restrained them from interfering with the temple’s activities administered by the first respondent as a Hereditary Trustee. The core issue revolves around whether the temple is a private or public institution.

The court analyzed the relevant sections of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, defining “Religious Charity,” “Religious Institution,” and “Temple.” Section 63 empowers the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to decide disputes regarding the nature of the institution.

Industrial Relations Code, 2020 – Sections 1(3), 51, 103 & 104; Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India – This writ petition challenges Notification No. S.O. 5320(E), dated 21.11.2025, issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, arguing it is ultra vires the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioner contends that the notification, which brought the Code’s provisions into force on 21.11.2025, effectively shut down Labour Courts and Tribunals operating under previous enactments (referred to in Section 104(1) of the Industrial Relations Code).

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 363, 366, 354-B, 302, 201; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Sections 6, 8; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 366 – The case involves an appeal against the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the High Court, for the offences of kidnapping, rape, murder, and destruction of evidence related to a seven-year-old girl. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen together” theory, CCTV footage, confessional statements leading to recoveries, and DNA profiling.

The appellant argued that the trial was unfair, that the evidence was fabricated, and that the prosecution’s narrative was full of improbabilities. He claimed illegal custody, planted evidence, and a rushed trial without adequate legal representation.

The Constitution of India Article 22(1); The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) Section 50 (BNSS 2023 Section 47 and 48) – This judgment addresses the critical issue of informing an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest, as guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The appeals arose from cases where appellants claimed their arrests were illegal because they were not provided with the grounds for their arrest in writing.

The court emphasizes that informing an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest is a fundamental right stemming from Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and is further reinforced by Section 47 of BNSS 2023. This right is not merely a procedural formality but a crucial safeguard to enable the arrestee to defend themselves, seek legal counsel, and challenge their arrest and remand.

Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 – Section 28(2) – This case concerns a challenge to a final notice issued under Section 28(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, regarding encroachment on highway land. The petitioner had previously filed three writ petitions challenging earlier notices related to the same encroachment. The Highways Department sought to remove encroachments to construct a storm water drain, which was delayed due to the petitioner’s legal challenges on S.No.306.

Initially, a notice was issued on 06.11.2023, followed by subsequent legal proceedings and court orders directing the authorities to conduct inquiries and provide opportunities for the petitioner to present his case, claiming ownership of the adjacent property in S.No.307/5A.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) – This appeal arises from the dismissal of a divorce petition filed by the appellant, husband, seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The husband alleged that his wife treated him poorly, refused marital relations, neglected their child, and deserted him. The wife denied these allegations, claiming she cared for her family and was willing to live with her husband.

The Family Court dismissed the petition, finding that the husband failed to prove desertion and specific instances of cruelty.

Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – Section 45-ZA and Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 1985 – Rule 2(1) – This writ petition was filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent (Cooperative Society) to hand over the fixed deposit amounts of the petitioner’s deceased mother, C. Angammal, to the petitioner, based on his nomination under Section 45-ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and Rule 2(1) of the Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 1985.

The petitioner claimed to be the nominee for fixed deposits worth Rs. 7,50,000 in his mother’s name with the 1st respondent.

This case concerns a petitioner challenging a bank’s rejection of their One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposal. The petitioner had availed a crop loan from the respondent bank, which later became a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The bank initially offered an OTS under the “NDND 2023-24 – Rin Samadhan” scheme, requiring the petitioner to deposit ₹1,00,000 for full settlement. The petitioner deposited ₹30,000 initially, but the bank subsequently rejected the OTS, citing that the value of the petitioner’s non-agricultural property (security) exceeded 125% of the outstanding loan amount, making them ineligible under the scheme’s guidelines.

Industrial Relations Code, 2020 – Section 14 & Section 2(zr) – This writ petition challenged a notification for the recognition of trade unions within the first respondent Corporation, arguing that it improperly included Class I and II officers and seasonal workers as voters. The petitioner contended that Class I and II officers are not workmen and seasonal workmen are not on the regular rolls. They also claimed inadequate time was granted for campaigning, deviating from the schedule set by the Supreme Court in the Food Corporation of India case.

The Corporation countered that the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, defines “worker” broadly, including Class I and II officers for Chapter III purposes, which covers trade union recognition.