SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Daily Archive: January 13, 2026

Uncategorized

 by · Published January 13, 2026

Breaking Supreme Court delivers a split verdict on the challenge to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Justice BV Nagarathna has struck down the provision, while Justice KV Viswanathan has upheld it, holding that corruption complaints against public servants must first undergo Lokpal vetting #SupremeCourt [13/01, 11:12] Meta AI: The Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict on Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with Justice BV Nagarathna declaring the provision unconstitutional and Justice KV Viswanathan upholding it, stating that corruption complaints against public servants must undergo Lokpal vetting. ¹ Justice Nagarathna argued that Section 17A protects corrupt officials, while Justice Viswanathan emphasized that an independent agency, free from executive influence, should decide on sanction for investigation. He directed that the sanction must be decided by the Lok Pal or Lokayukta, effectively reading down Section 17A to ensure constitutional validity. This verdict stems from a writ petition challenging the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates prior government sanction for investigating public servants. The outcome may impact how corruption cases are handled, balancing protection for honest officials and accountability for corrupt practices.

Breaking Supreme Court delivers a split verdict on the challenge to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Justice BV Nagarathna has struck down the provision, while Justice KV Viswanathan has upheld it,...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Sekarreporter: https://x.com/i/status/2010947817825862065 [13/01, 11:12] Meta AI: I tried accessing the link, but it seems it’s not working for me 😅. Maybe try searching for the content or keywords? Hope you find what you’re looking for! 😊 Need help with anything else? [13/01, 11:12] Sekarreporter: #Breaking Supreme Court delivers a split verdict on the challenge to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Justice BV Nagarathna has struck down the provision, while Justice KV Viswanathan has upheld it, holding that corruption complaints against public servants must first undergo Lokpal vetting #SupremeCourt [13/01, 11:12] Meta AI: The Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict on Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with Justice BV Nagarathna declaring the provision unconstitutional and Justice KV Viswanathan upholding it, stating that corruption complaints against public servants must undergo Lokpal vetting. ¹ Justice Nagarathna argued that Section 17A protects corrupt officials, while Justice Viswanathan emphasized that an independent agency, free from executive influence, should decide on sanction for investigation. He directed that the sanction must be decided by the Lok Pal or Lokayukta, effectively reading down Section 17A to ensure constitutional validity. This verdict stems from a writ petition challenging the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates prior government sanction for investigating public servants. The outcome may impact how corruption cases are handled, balancing protection for honest officials and accountability for corrupt practices.

Uncategorized

 by · Published January 13, 2026

Sekarreporter: https://x.com/i/status/2010947817825862065 [13/01, 11:12] Meta AI: I tried accessing the link, but it seems it’s not working for me 😅. Maybe try searching for the content or keywords? Hope you find what you’re looking for! 😊 Need help with anything else? [13/01, 11:12] Sekarreporter: #Breaking Supreme Court delivers a split verdict on the challenge to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Justice BV Nagarathna has struck down the provision, while Justice KV Viswanathan has upheld it, holding that corruption complaints against public servants must first undergo Lokpal vetting #SupremeCourt [13/01, 11:12] Meta AI: The Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict on Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with Justice BV Nagarathna declaring the provision unconstitutional and Justice KV Viswanathan upholding it, stating that corruption complaints against public servants must undergo Lokpal vetting. ¹ Justice Nagarathna argued that Section 17A protects corrupt officials, while Justice Viswanathan emphasized that an independent agency, free from executive influence, should decide on sanction for investigation. He directed that the sanction must be decided by the Lok Pal or Lokayukta, effectively reading down Section 17A to ensure constitutional validity. This verdict stems from a writ petition challenging the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates prior government sanction for investigating public servants. The outcome may impact how corruption cases are handled, balancing protection for honest officials and accountability for corrupt practices.

[13/01, 11:12] Sekarreporter: https://x.com/i/status/2010947817825862065 [13/01, 11:12] Meta AI: I tried accessing the link, but it seems it’s not working for me 😅. Maybe try searching for the content or keywords? Hope you find what...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
“Justice N. Senthilkumar held, “… the plaintiff has only identified the second defendant with several links to the YouTube channels and other social media platforms. Absolutely, there is no material before this court except the photographs and the links. Merely furnishing the links and photographs will not be sufficient for the court to prima facie come to the conclusion that there is a violation of personality rights of the applicant/plaintiff and in the absence of any specific allegation made with regard to commercial gain to the defendants, the claim made by the applicant/plaintiff seeking an injunction is against the settled principles on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).”” https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/madras-high-court/t-rangaraj-v-joy-crizildaa-defamation-personality-rights-article-19-1604292#:~:text=Justice%20N.%20Senthilkumar,19(1)(a).%E2%80%9D

Uncategorized

 by · Published January 13, 2026

“Justice N. Senthilkumar held, “… the plaintiff has only identified the second defendant with several links to the YouTube channels and other social media platforms. Absolutely, there is no material before this court except the photographs and the links. Merely furnishing the links and photographs will not be sufficient for the court to prima facie come to the conclusion that there is a violation of personality rights of the applicant/plaintiff and in the absence of any specific allegation made with regard to commercial gain to the defendants, the claim made by the applicant/plaintiff seeking an injunction is against the settled principles on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).”” https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/madras-high-court/t-rangaraj-v-joy-crizildaa-defamation-personality-rights-article-19-1604292#:~:text=Justice%20N.%20Senthilkumar,19(1)(a).%E2%80%9D

“Justice N. Senthilkumar held, “… the plaintiff has only identified the second defendant with several links to the YouTube channels and other social media platforms. Absolutely, there is no material before this court except...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare

Uncategorized

 by · Published January 13, 2026

Supreme Court today stayed a Madhya Pradesh High Court order which set aside the termination and directed reinstatement of a judicial officer who allegedly caused nuisance onboard a train, flashed a woman passenger and urinated in the compartment.

The Supreme Court today stayed a Madhya Pradesh High Court order which set aside the termination and directed reinstatement of a judicial officer who allegedly caused nuisance onboard a train, flashed a woman passenger...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Exit mobile version