LawLoveLegal

Introduction The ongoing conflict between the Madras High Court and the Tamil Nadu government over the Karthigai Deepam lamp-lighting ritual at Thiruparankundram hill has intensified. Despite repeated judicial directions, district authorities and police have allegedly prevented devotees from performing the annual ritual atop the ancient Deepathoon lamp pillar. The issue has now escalated to the Supreme Court after the state government challenged the High Court’s orders. This article examines the factual chronology, legal provisions, constitutional questions, and judicial precedents involved, while highlighting the political tensions surrounding the controversy. Background of the Dispute The Deepathoon Lamp Ritual at Thiruparankundram The Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai district is a historically syncretic religious site containing: Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple Kasi Viswanathar Temple Sikkander Badusha Dargah For decades, there has been no dispute over the hill...

The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that the judiciary’s responsibility extends beyond statutory interpretation—it also includes safeguarding the dignity, autonomy, and peace of women, especially after matrimonial disputes have lawfully ended. In a significant judgment delivered by Justice L. Victoria Gowri on November 13, the Madurai Bench dismissed a maintenance plea that sought to drag a divorced woman back into litigation nearly a decade after her mutual-consent divorce. This decision reasserts the Constitutional mandate under Article 21 and clarifies the limits of maintainability and locus standi in maintenance proceedings. Background of the Case Divorce and Settlement in 2014 The woman and her estranged husband obtained a mutual consent divorce in 2014. As part of the agreement: The mother voluntarily declined maintenance. Custody of the minor son was granted to the father. The father agreed to bear all maintenance expenses for the child. Both parties subsequent...

The Madras High Court has directed Air India Limited to compensate a passenger with ₹35,000 after he suffered vomiting sensations and stomach pain from consuming a meal that contained a strand of hair . The ruling reinforces the principle that airlines are liable for negligence in services provided to passengers, even when outsourced to third-party caterers. Background of the Case The case arose when a passenger onboard an Air India flight consumed food supplied by the airline, only to find a hair follicle in the meal. The passenger experienced immediate nausea, vomiting, and stomach pain, and subsequently lodged a complaint upon landing. The trial court had earlier directed Air India to pay ₹1 lakh in damages for negligence. Air India appealed against this decision, arguing that the food was prepared by an external caterer — Ambassador Pallava Hotel — and that the airline itself could not be held directly responsible. Court’s Observations and Findings Justice P. B. Ba...

  Introduction The recent controversy surrounding stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra has reignited the debate on freedom of speech and expression in India. The Madras High Court granted Kamra interim anticipatory bail in multiple FIRs lodged against him over his alleged remarks on Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. This article analyzes the case in the context of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, and its reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) . Kunal Kamra's Remarks and Legal Trouble Kunal Kamra, known for his satirical comedy, made controversial statements targeting Eknath Shinde. This led to multiple FIRs being filed against him. Kamra sought transit anticipatory bail from the Madras High Court, citing threats he received after his comments. The court granted him interim anticipatory bail until April 7 , subject to conditions. Mumbai police had earlier summoned Kamra for qu...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in the Dispute Over Trust Property of Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple On September 13, 2024 , the Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeal in Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 , involving the dispute over the ownership and title of a trust property related to the Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple . The appeal, filed by Sri Siddaraja Manicka Prabhu Temple , challenged the judgment passed by the Madras High Court on October 26, 2017 , which had upheld the decision that the disputed property was trust property and not under the absolute ownership of the appellant. Background of the Case The case revolves around the ownership of an immovable property adjacent to the Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple (referred to as the "suit property"). This property, along with the temple, was originally owned by Rai Raja Eswardoss Diawanth Bahadur , whose son and grandson, T. Lakshmidoss and T. Venkataprasad , were declared insolvents by the Madras High Court in 1914 . A...