Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stated that when any matter regarding any leader of the Country or State is being printed or published, it should be properly addressed.

The Madras High Court restrained the State from acquiring more buses as part of public transport as long as it did not conform to the notification issued on 20th September 2016 mandating disabled friendly amenities in buses.

The Madras High Court upheld the Mahila Courts decision in convicting a pastor accused of aggravated sexual assault. Additionally, the High Court directed the State Government to constitute committees at every school to inspect grievances pertaining to sexual assault.

The Madras High Court stated that Right to Privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and held that a person acquitted of all charges is entitled to redact his name from the ruling so as to ensure that his Right to Privacy is not being violated.

The Madras High Court upheld the validity of the panel that was constituted by the State government and held that such a constitution does not contravene the orders of the Supreme Court or that it does not undermine the authority of the Centre in regulating NEET.

The Madras High Court while rejecting the plea of the appellant against his conviction, held that the visually impaired victim’s testimony is entitled to equal weight as that of a prosecutrix who could have been able to visually identify the appellant.

The Madras HC dismissed the petition filed by Karti Chidambaram and Srinidhi Chidambaram against the show cause notice issued to them. According to the Court there was no malice in issuance of the show cause notice and interfering at the stage of show cause notice would be prejudicial to the due process of law.

The order stated that “when a patient is admitted to a hospital and suffers any injury or death which is not anticipated to occur in the normal course of events, even in the absence of medical negligence, the government is obliged to disburse ex-gratia to the affected party.”

Has the Supreme Court got so worked over a judge? Well, that’s happening for the first time in India. The judge of Calcutta High Court, Justice Karnan was issued a contempt order by the seven judge bench of the...