Live
- Palle Sindhura Reddy flays YS Jagan during election campaign in Puttaparthi
- KK Raju files nomination amid public celebrations and predicts victory with 45k vote majority
- Vijayawada Central Candidate Vellampally Srinivas Campaigns in 28th Division Railway Colony
- DCA busts three quack clinics in Hyd, Jangaon and Mahabubnagar
- Man threatens to jump into lake if he doesn’t get divorced from his wife
- Vikram’s ‘Veera Dheera Sooran’ teaser: Laden with mass elements
- Tamil Nadu records 40.05 pc voting till 1 pm
- Sithara Entertainments announces ‘MAD Square;’ pooja ceremony held
- Google Unifies Hardware and Software Teams for Advanced AI Development
- Amit Shah Recalls Political Journey As He Files Nomination From Gandhinagar
'Utterly mischievous', Madras HC dismisses PIL against CM Stalin
Madras High Court
The first bench of the Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by an advocate against the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister.
The first bench of the Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by an advocate against the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister for chairing an advisory committee meeting of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department.
The litigant said that the Chief Minister must be prevented from chairing the meet without taking a pledge that he professes Hindu faith that is required to be undertaken by the HR&CE employees.
The court refused to entertain the PIL petition at the admission stage itself and termed it "utterly mischievous". The court also ruled that prejudice was involved in the prayer of the litigant and that the PIL was in "extremely bad taste".
The division bench of the Madras High court also barred the litigant S. Sreedharan from filing further Public Interest Litigations in the High court for the next five years without obtaining the express permission of the concerned bench.
The court however did not levy any fine on the litigant.
The court ruled that no religion preached narrow mindedness or to hurt others and said that the sentiments expressed by the litigant could not be entertained.
The judges observed, "This is a secular country. Even the constitution permits one to take the oath of office either in the name of god or constitution."
The court also said that prejudice and vendetta must be removed when it comes to practicing religion.
