HC’s first all-women Full Bench to hear crucial case today:

[3/4, 07:15] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1234853696183439362?s=08
[3/4, 07:16] Sekarreporter 1: [3/4, 07:15] Sekarreporter 1: HC’s first all-women Full Bench to hear crucial case today: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/hcs-first-all-women-full-bench-to-hear-crucial-case-today/article30976489.ece
[3/4, 07:15] Sekarreporter 1: The Chief Justice of Madras High Court Amreshwar Pratap Sahi has made the oncoming International Women’s Day this year a memorable event for the 157-year-old institution by constituting its first-ever all-women Full Bench (comprising three judges) to answer a reference made to it by a division bench (comprising two judges).
Interestingly, the reference to the Full Bench consisting of Justices Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Anita Sumanth and P.T. Asha, who shall hold their first hearing together on Wednesday, was made by the first Division Bench led by the Chief Justice himself sitting along with Justice Subramonium Prasad on Monday.
[3/4, 07:15] Sekarreporter 1: About a year ago, the Madras High Court had the distinction of having had the highest number of 11 women judges. Pursuant to the retirement of two, now nine among the 55 sitting judges are women. Most of them got elevated to the Bench during the tenure of former Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (now a Supreme Court judge). The High Court had already reached the distinction of having had an all-women Division Bench during the tenure of former Chief Justice Indira Banerjee (also a Supreme Court judge now). Women judges also outnumbered men in a Full Bench when Justice T.S. Sivagnanam sat along with Justices V. Bhavani Subbaroyan and Asha last year.
Maiden sitting of the all-women Full Bench on Wednesday would decide a crucial question of law — whether unaided private educational institutions in the State could be treated to be an ‘establishment’ under Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act of 1948 so that the provisions of the legislation could be made applicable to them.
The Full Bench would also be answering as to whether the State government had discriminated between private unaided educational institutions on the one hand and Government-aided educational institutions on the other by issuing a notification for application of the ESI Act only to the former and not to the latter.
The first Division Bench led by the Chief Justice had framed these questions on a batch of cases filed by a huge number of private unaided educational institutions in the State and referred them to the Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com