Latest news with #N.AnandVenkatesh
The Hindu
14 hours ago
- Politics
- 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.
The Hindu
16 hours ago
- Politics
- 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.
The Hindu
5 days ago
- Sport
- The Hindu
Chepauk Super Gillies' owner moves Madras High Court against TNOGA notice on online gaming ‘endorsement'
A media company that owns Chepauk Super Gillies, a leading participant in the Tamil Nadu Premier League (TNPL) organised by the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (TNCA), has approached the Madras High Court against a notice issued by the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (TNOGA), warning it of penal action over an alleged indirect endorsement of an online gambling website. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh on Friday (June 28, 2025) took note of the submission of senior counsel P.R. Raman, representing Metronation Chennai Television Private Limited, that the TNOGA's notice insisting that Chepauk Super Gillies remove the endorsement had been issued on June 26, 2025, when the TNPL 2025, which began on June 5 and is expected to end on July 6, was at an advanced stage. The judge directed TNOGA counsel B. Arvind Srevatsa to take notice on behalf of the authority and instruct it to keep all further action in abeyance till July 16. In an affidavit filed in support of its writ petition, Metronation, which also owns Thanthi TV, said the TNOGA had issued issued a show-cause notice on May 16, taking exception to an endorsement on the Chepauk Super Gillies' jersey. In the notice, the TNOGA stated that the signage MELBAT found on the jersey amounts to indirectly promoting the betting/gambling website MELBET, and that this was in violation of Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022. The authority had asked Metronation to respond as to why it should not be proceeded against for such a violation. Metronation denies charge Metronation responded to the notice on June 21, stoutly denying the charge of having promoted online gambling through its jersey branding. It told the authority that the logo displayed on the jersey was that of 'MELBAT LIVE,' a website engaged in sports news. The company asserted that the logo did not contain any language, imagery, or context that could be construed as promoting betting or gambling. After considering the reply, the TNOGA sent a second notice to the company on June 26, observing that the explanation was unsustainable since Section 8 of the Act prohibits not only direct but also indirect advertisement of online gambling. Therefore, the authority gave a final opportunity to Metronation to remove the endorsement within 48 hours or face action under Section 16 of the Act. Since Section 16 provides for the imposition of imprisonment for a term extending up to one year or fine, which could extend up to ₹5 lakh or both, for contravention of Section 8 of the Act, the media company had rushed to the court with a plea to quash the June 26 notice. It contended that the TNOGA had issued the notice without considering the Advertising Standards Council of India guidelines.
The Hindu
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Hindu
Banning online film reviews equivalent to curtailing freedom of speech and expression: Madras High Court
Holding that banning online review of movies for first three days of their theatrical release would tantamount to interfering with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, the Madras High Court, on Thursday (June 26, 2025) dismissed a writ petition seeking such restriction filed by Tamil Film Active Producers Association (TFAPA). Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said, reviewing the quality of newly-released movies on mainstream media as well as social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and X was also a part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and therefore, producers could not expect only positive reviews. The judge said, the members of the producers association should accept the reality and not attempt to foreclose reviews. 'The relief sought for by them in the present writ petition is unsustainable and cannot be granted by this court,' he observed dictating orders. 'Negative reviews about judges too' He added the producers appeared to have conveniently forgotten about the new challenge posed to the existence of cinema theatres by the OTT (Over the Top) platform which was slowly turning out to be the preferred choice for many to watch newly-released movies at the comfort of their homes. During the course of hearing, the judge told the petitioner's counsel 'we are living in an era when people give negative reviews even about judges. Just go and see how they have criticised me on the social media. We cannot stop all those things. Today anything and anybody can be reviewed. It is all beyond control.' What if review comes from Azerbaijan? He added: 'I follow a different practice. Whenever there is a negative review about a movie, I watch that particular movie because I know that it is done by some force. With social media, you can stop nobody. If you stop someone here, another person will do it from Azerbaijan. What will you do then?' The judge also asked, 'even if I pass an order as sought by you, how can that order be implemented? I do not believe in passing orders which cannot be implemented. You are seeking an impossibility before this court. Today, the entire world is in the grip of social media. There is not a single person/organisation/country which escapes the review or comments made in social media.' 'Next to impossible to stop' Stating it was next to impossible to stop such comments, he said: 'In the social media era, awareness is the only solution through which the society can tread a balanced path. People must gauge movies after watching them and should not be swayed by what others say about those movies.' Also observing that the opinion regarding a movie would differ from person to person, Justice Venkatesh said, just because some persons give a negative review about a movie, that by itself, would not stop others from watching the movie and coming to their own conclusion. 'That is the reason why this court has said that awareness alone could be the panacea for the social media evil. History tells us that movies which faced such negative reviews in the beginning, actually revived themselves and proved to be successful. Therefore, people must not be undermined,' he added.
The Hindu
7 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
PVR INOX moves Madras High Court again challenging proposed closure of multiplex at Chennai airport's Aerohub
PVR INOX has approached the Madras High Court again with a new writ petition challenging an order passed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) on June 20, 2025 refusing to permit the operation of a five-screen multiplex at the Chennai airport's multi level car parking-cum-commercial complex named 'Aerohub.' Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, on Thursday (June 26) directed the AAI to file its counter affidavit by July 8 and ordered maintenance of status quo till then, since senior counsel P.S. Raman, representing PVR INOX, reported that the company had invested ₹20 crore on the multiplex and that it could not be closed down at will. On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) AR.L. Sundaresan, assisted by AAI counsel Ramaswamy Meyyappan, told the court nothing would happen if the Chennai city is devoid of just one multiplex. He also brought it to the notice of the court that AAI had not signed any direct contract with the multiplex operator. In his submissions, Mr. Raman said, AAI had entered into a development contract with Meenambakkam Realty Private Limited, a special purpose vehicle floated by Olympia Techpark (Chennai) Private Limited, for the construction of Aerohub and that PVR INOX was a sub-licencee of Meenambakkam Realty. Following disputes, AAI had prematurely terminated the development agreement with Meenambakkam Realty but did not order closure any of the commercial establishments run by sub-licencees but for insisting upon closure of the multiplex alone on the ground that cinema hall was not permissible under the AAI Act of 1994. Mr. Raman contended the AAI Act does not contain any express prohibition on operation of cinema halls at the airports. He said, Section 12(f) of the Act only states that the functions of AAI would include the establishment and maintenance of hotels, restaurants or restrooms either at the airports or near the airports. 'If it is the case of AAI that nothing but for hotels, restaurants and restrooms can be operated by AAI, then how is it that Ramraj Cotton is selling dhotis and Higginbothams is selling books. There is a gymnasium too and every other conceivable activity that could be found in any other shopping mall is found in the Aerohub too,' he said. Contending the AAI could not project the operation of a cinema hall in the airport as an illegal activity, the senior counsel said, the authority was bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel since the construction of the cinema hall was done with the full consent of AAI which had approved the building plan.
