HC dismisses plea to appoint panel of Agama experts to finalise temple renovation works
A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete observed that the State government had already appointed an expert committee and a G.O. had been issued in this regard.
If the petitioner was of the opinion that any customs or practices were being violated, he was at liberty to approach the competent authorities under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, the court observed and dismissed the petition filed by B. Ramkumar Adityan of Tiruchendur.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Centre to file review plea against Madras HC order dispensing with husband's signature in passport form
The Union Ministry of External Affairs has decided to file a review petition seeking a clarification with respect to a recent ruling passed by the Madras High Court that married women need not obtain husband's signature in Form J while applying for passport. Appearing before Justice N. Anand Venkatesh on Wednesday (July 2, 2025), Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan said, the passport authorities insist on the husband's signature only to avoid malpractices of obtaining a passport with false details regarding the spouse's name. He said, there was an office memorandum to that effect. 'Sometimes, applicants obtain passports by mentioning a third person's name as their spouse and use the details entered in the passport as evidence elsewhere. That is the reason we want to file a review,' he added. The judge accepted his request and agreed to hear the review petition as and when it gets listed. While allowing a writ petition filed by a woman applicant from Chennai, the judge on June 18, 2025, observed that married women could not be treated as chattels belonging to their husbands. Since the petitioner before the court was facing a divorce case against her husband, the judge had pointed out that it would be next to impossible for her to obtain her husband's signature in Form J. He had also stated that women could not be considered to have lost their individuality after marriage.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
After Sivagangai custodial death, new Tamil Nadu police brutality video emerges
A video showing Tamil Nadu police's brutality has surfaced, just days after the custodial death of 27-year-old Ajith Kumar in Tamil Nadu's Sivagangai. The video of an accused being beaten by a policeman inside a station in Theni district was obtained by a lawyer via CCTV footage, which is six months old, shows a man being assaulted inside Devanathanpatti police station. The accused, identified as Ramesh, an autorickshaw driver, was detained on January 14, 2025, for allegedly causing public nuisance while video shows police officials brutally beating Ramesh inside the station premises. The footage has now come to light after lawyer Pandiarajan, who had accessed it through the Right to Information (RTI) Act for a different case, chose to release it. He said the intention was to show how police brutality continues to be a recurring problem in Tamil Madras High Court had slammed the Tamil Nadu police over Ajith Kumar's death, calling it a 'brutal act' and said bluntly that 'the state has killed its own citizen.' The post-mortem report revealed 44 injuries on Ajith's body, with chilli powder applied to his back, mouth, and court questioned how someone with no criminal record was subjected to such horrifying torture and criticised serious lapses in the mounting pressure, Chief Minister MK Stalin announced that Ajith Kumar's custodial death case will be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Calling the police action 'unjustifiable,' Stalin warned that such acts must never be repeated and assured full cooperation to the CBI.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Tamil Nadu
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Phones cannot be tapped for covert operations aimed at crime detection, rules Madras High Court
In a significant verdict, the Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 2, 2025) held that the law, as it stands today, does not permit the tapping of telephonic conversations or messages for the purpose of covert operations or secretive situations aimed at the detection of crimes. The court said, the law permits phone-tapping only for limited purposes, such as public emergency or public safety. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh also observed that phone-tapping, as such, constitutes a violation of the right to privacy of an individual, unless it was justified by a procedure established by law. He quashed an authorisation issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in 2011 for tapping the phone of a person involved in a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case. The judge pointed out that the right to privacy was now an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution in view of Supreme Court decisions. Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 authorises interception of telephones only on two contingencies: on the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety. 'These two contingencies are not secretive conditions or situations. Either of these situations would be apparent to a reasonable person as laid down by the Supreme Court in the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) case. It is only when the above situations exist, the authority concerned may pass an order directing interception of messages after recording satisfaction if it is necessary or expedient to do so in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence,' the judge wrote. The judge allowed a 2018 writ petition filed by P. Kishore of Chennai, who had challenged the Home Ministry's August 12, 2011, authorisation to intercept his telephonic messages and conversations. 'In the instant case, the impugned (under challenge) order does not fall either within the ambit of public emergecy or the interest of public safety as explained by the Supreme Court in PUCL case,' he said. Justice Venkatesh went on to state: 'The facts of the case disclose that it was a covert operation or a secretive situation for detection of a crime which would not be apparent to any reasonable person. As the law presently stands, a situation of this nature does not fall within the four corners of Section 5(2) of the Act as expounded by the Supreme Court in PUCL which has been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttuswamy's case.' The judge further said, the officials had also contravened Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, by failing to place the intercepted materials before the review committee within the stipulated time to examine as to whether the interception was made in compliance with Section 5(2). 'As a consequence... the impugned order dated August 12, 2011, must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction,' he added.
