You may also like...
-
Quashed by judge N Sathis kumar j for petner senior adv abudu kumar argued. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) W.P. (Crl) No. of 2025 Ajay Rohan (Male/ 36 years) S/o. Duraimanickam, No.6, NRI Layout, VGP South Main Road, Panayur, Chennai – 600 119. …Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, No.132, Commissioner office Building, E.V.K. Sampath Road,
by Sekar Reporter · Published September 27, 2025
-
![[12/30, 16:40] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1211605395753463809?s=08 [12/30, 16:40] Sekarreporter 1: [12/30, 16:25] Karventhan Vidurhaisiruthai: The Opposition parties DMK, VCK and others filed a batch of writ petitions seeking for video coverage of counting of votes in local bodies elections through out tamilnadu and a direction to comply with rules 60 to 69 of TN Panchayat Elections Rules 1996, based on the representations sent by the opposition parties to State Election Commission. All the writ petition came up for hearing before the Honble Vacation Bench of Madras High Court today. The Opposition Parties were represented by various counsels under the lead of Senior Counsel Mr.N.R.Elango, on behalf of DMK’s party functionary Mr.R.S.Bharathi, MP, Rajya Sabha and Ms.S.Deepika, Counsel representing VCK Legal wing Secretary Mr.D.Parventhan. whereas State Election Commission was represented by Senior Counsel Mr.Ar.L.Sunderesan. it was represented by State Election Commission that when they are strictly following the chapter VI (Rules 60 to 69) of TN Panchayat Rules, there is no question of directing them by way of mandamus sought by the Petitioners. In the course of arguement and in the Counter Affidavit filed by Commission, it was informed that the Returning Officers are instructed to install CCTV Cameras in counting booths and the coverage would not be only focussing the ballot papers which was vehemently opposed by all the Petitioner Counsels and district wise malpractices and incidents were reported before the court. Quiet interestingly, the State Government And Election Commission submitted that the Writ Petitions are merely based and presumptions and apprehensions and no past history was recorded. Whereas the same was countered by Petitioner’s Counsel that their (commission) own circular admitted about the past history of malpractices and booth capturing etc., Ultimately the Election Commission conceded to the fact that they would delete the line mentioning about the ” recording would not cover ballot papers ” in their circular dated 13.12.2019. Recording their ( State Election Commission) submission that the counting process would be videographed in the presence of candidates and their agents, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. [12/30, 16:26] Sekarreporter 1: 👍](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
[12/30, 16:40] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1211605395753463809?s=08 [12/30, 16:40] Sekarreporter 1: [12/30, 16:25] Karventhan Vidurhaisiruthai: The Opposition parties DMK, VCK and others filed a batch of writ petitions seeking for video coverage of counting of votes in local bodies elections through out tamilnadu and a direction to comply with rules 60 to 69 of TN Panchayat Elections Rules 1996, based on the representations sent by the opposition parties to State Election Commission. All the writ petition came up for hearing before the Honble Vacation Bench of Madras High Court today. The Opposition Parties were represented by various counsels under the lead of Senior Counsel Mr.N.R.Elango, on behalf of DMK’s party functionary Mr.R.S.Bharathi, MP, Rajya Sabha and Ms.S.Deepika, Counsel representing VCK Legal wing Secretary Mr.D.Parventhan. whereas State Election Commission was represented by Senior Counsel Mr.Ar.L.Sunderesan. it was represented by State Election Commission that when they are strictly following the chapter VI (Rules 60 to 69) of TN Panchayat Rules, there is no question of directing them by way of mandamus sought by the Petitioners. In the course of arguement and in the Counter Affidavit filed by Commission, it was informed that the Returning Officers are instructed to install CCTV Cameras in counting booths and the coverage would not be only focussing the ballot papers which was vehemently opposed by all the Petitioner Counsels and district wise malpractices and incidents were reported before the court. Quiet interestingly, the State Government And Election Commission submitted that the Writ Petitions are merely based and presumptions and apprehensions and no past history was recorded. Whereas the same was countered by Petitioner’s Counsel that their (commission) own circular admitted about the past history of malpractices and booth capturing etc., Ultimately the Election Commission conceded to the fact that they would delete the line mentioning about the ” recording would not cover ballot papers ” in their circular dated 13.12.2019. Recording their ( State Election Commission) submission that the counting process would be videographed in the presence of candidates and their agents, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. [12/30, 16:26] Sekarreporter 1: 👍
by Sekar Reporter · Published December 30, 2019
-
supreme court TODAY ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 15897/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-09-2025 in CRLOP No. 18671/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras] THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS K.IMMANUVEL @ KEYNOS ARMSTRONG & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No. 254688/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 256837/2025 – INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 256483/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ ANNEXURES IA No. 254692/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 10-10-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR For Respondent(s) :Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Ms. Meha Ashok Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Aman Sinha, Adv. Mr. P. Anandan, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Vairawan A.s, AOR Mr. Naveen Murali, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. Application seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment is allowed. 2. Issue notice returnable on 14.11.2025 2 3. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Notice to the respondent No.1 is waived. 4. Notice be issued to the remaining respondent(s). 5. In the meantime, order of quashing charge sheet shall remain stayed.
by Sekar Reporter · Published October 10, 2025