ADVOCATE R. KARUNANIDHI, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

Moot question: Whether the rejection of candidature solely on the ground of a minor discrepancy in the duration of experience mentioned in the online application and the experience certificate is justified ? Para No. 8 of the Order : The mistake committed by the petitioner, while mentioning the duration of experience, is trivial in nature and the same does not in any manner impact the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Rehabilitation Counsellor... The action of the third respondent in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner solely on the ground of discrepancy in the duration of the experience... appears to be a hypertechnical, thereby frustrating the entire recruitment process Decision: The Honourable Court allowed the writ petition, holding that: 1. The rejection of candidature on such a trivial ground was hypertechnical and arbitrary. 2. The genuineness of the experience certificate was not disputed. 3. The petitioner was the only candidate who appeared for phys...

The Madras High Court has directed an investigation into the complaints made by a Senior Warden alleging violence suffered by him due to some disciplinary action taken against ragging. Terming the order of the Magistrate rejecting the demand for further investigation as cryptic, the Bench set aside the same. The High Court was considering a Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, to set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court and direct further investigation. The de facto complainant raised the concern that a criminal investigation, born out of a serious incident inside a medical college hostel campus, was brought to a premature burial under the caption “undetected”, without exhausting the avenues of investigation which the facts of the case reasonably demanded. The Single Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri held, “The impugned order does not indicate that the learned Magistrate independently considered the specific objections ...

Advocate R.Karunanidhi from Madurai filed a public interest litigation petition in the High Court stating that a dedicated calendar for the judiciary had not been printed to date. ​Currently, the Tamil Nadu state government supplies calendars featuring photos of the Chief Minister, which are used across all courts, including the High Court. These calendars do not mark court holidays or judicial schedules. The advocate argued that the judiciary is an independent body that should remain free from political influence, and that publishing calendars with photos of political leaders should be stopped in favor of an exclusive judicial calendar. ​Court Order/Verdict: Hearing the petition, Chief Justice Iqbal and Justice T. Sivagnanam ordered that appropriate steps be taken to issue a dedicated calendar for the judiciary starting from the year 2011, subsequently disposed the case.