• stumble
  • youtube
  • linkedin

Archives for : Madras High Court

Madras HC – Hindu converted to Islam doesn’t lose backward class status


Apr 10, 2014, 05.01AM IST TNN[ A Subramani ]


CHENNAI: The Madras high court has ordered the Tamil Nadu government to instruct its officials to issue backward class (BC) community certificates to people who embrace Islam, categorically saying that a BC member would get all the benefits meant for BCs even after conversion to Islam.

“I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that a person belonging to Hindu backward class community, on conversion to Islam, would get the benefit of backward class status if the person is covered under List III of the government order no. 85,” said Justice D Hariparanthaman on Wednesday. The list contains seven sects of ‘backward class’ Muslims. They are: Ansar, Dekkani Muslims, Dudekula, Labbais (including Rawthar and Marakayar speaking Tamil or Urdu), Mapilla, Sheik and Syed, the judge pointed out.

In his 88-page order tracing the origin of caste-resistance movements by various communities and the prevalence of two-tumbler system in several parts of the state, Justice Hariparanthaman trashed two government communications sent in February 2010 and August 2012 asking collectors not to issue BC certificates to converted Muslims. Describing it as persecution of Muslim brothers and akin to ‘untouchability’ practised on dalits, the judge said, “Denial of BC community certificate to converted Muslims amounts to deprivation of fundamental rights.”

The judge was passing orders on a petition filed by M U Aariffaa, who was a Nadar (a BC community) before her conversion to Islam in 2006. Though she cleared the TNPSC examination for village administrative officer (VAO) in 2012, she was not selected as she was treated as ‘others’. Later in the same year, she was not appointed station officer in fire service department citing the same reason. On both occasions she moved the high court and obtained an order directing the respective departments to keep one post vacant.

Justice Hariparanthaman said: “Counsel for the TNPSC does not dispute the genuineness of the conversion of Aariffaa to Labbai Muslim. According to her, ‘converted’ Labbai Muslim is not on List III which covered only ‘born Labbai Muslim’. This is, in fact, doing violence to the List. The only thing that has to be seen is whether the candidate has genuinely converted to any one of the sects in List III. If it is so, there ends the matter.”

While accepting amicus curiae M Ajmalkhan’s stance that there is no such a thing as ‘converted’ Muslim, Justice Hariparanthaman disagreed with his claim that unlike in the case of Christianity, a convert’s original caste status is erased on embracing Islam.

The judge also flayed the Tamil Nadu Backward Class Commission for its stand that no convert to Islam is entitled to get BC community certificate and that all such existing certificates are bogus. “The view expressed by the commission has no basis and it has to be rejected, as it would result in the denial of community certificates to all converts to Islam,” Justice Hariparanthaman said.

Directing the government to appoint Aariffaa to either of the posts she had qualified immediately, the judge said she should be placed at the appropriate place in the seniority list meant for BC Muslims.


Read mor ehere —

Enhanced by Zemanta

Related posts

Madras HC acquits Cops in Dalit Woman Custodial Death Case #Vaw


English: Madurai High Court

English: Madurai High Court (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Madras High Court bench today acquitted all eight policemen in the case of the custodial death of a 48-year-old Dalit woman in 2002.

Justice Aruna Jagadeesan set aside the judgement by a lower court given in February of last year and acquitted all the policemen after observing that the charge against them had not been proved. The lower court had sentenced the policemen to up to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.

Karuppi, a domestic help, was accused by her employer of stealing a gold chain from his house.

She was questioned at Parmakdui police station where she was allegedly tortured for six days. Her body was found hanging from a transmission tower behind the police station in the early hours of December 1, 2002.

Police registered a case of suicide in the matter and denied that she had died at the police station.

But various organisations took up the case and the policemen were convicted by the lower court in February, 2013.






Enhanced by Zemanta

Related posts

Madras HC – Oil companies asked not to insist on Aadhaar cards #UID

A view of the Madras High Court complex, File photo

The HinduA view of the Madras High Court complex, File photo

The Madras High Court on Thursday directed the oil companies not to insist on the submission of Aadhaar cards for availing of direct transfer of subsidy.

A Divison Bench of Justices R. Sudhakar and V.M. Velumani of Madurai Bench said the Supreme Court was already hearing the issue, and till the apex court decided on it, LPG agents or the oil companies should not insist on production of Aadhaar card or submission of numbers etc.

The bench had already ordered notices be served on them to solicit their views on the matter.

The Petitioner S.M. Ananthamurgan, in his PIL, said gas agencies were insisting on Aadhaar card which was against a Supreme Court directive.

The apex court had said in September that Aadhaar was not mandatory for getting government subsidies. The central government had submitted that the document, which served as unique identity for Indian residents, was not mandatory for getting government aid.

Strangely, gas agencies were urging consumers to provide Aadhaar details along with their bank account details to get LPG subsidy directly into their accounts, the petitioner said.


Read more here —

Enhanced by Zemanta

Related posts

#MadrasHC – Evidence of conducting puja alone cannot define a Hindu

Oct 31, 2013,  TNN[ A Subramani ]

Not conducting puja by a Hindu in puja room regularly cannot be a conclusive proof to declare that he is not a Hindu, the Madras high court said.
CHENNAI: Holding that not conducting puja by a Hindu in puja room regularly cannot be a conclusive proof to declare that he is not a Hindu, the Madras high court has quashed cancellation of community certificate of a dalit panchayat president, who had reconverted from Christianity.

A division bench comprising Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice K Ravichandra Baabu, concurring with the submissions of senior advocate K Duraisamy on Thursday, said the village administrative officer and the revenue divisional officer were not correct in concluding that K Vasikaran was not a Hindu, merely because his house had a puja room but there was no evidence of prayer/puja there. They also reported that words from the Bible were found at the house and a cross had been inscribed on its pillars.

Vasikaran was elected president of Gerugambakkam panchayat, which is a local body reserved for dalits, in October 2011. After the poll loss, his rival candidate moved the state election commission to strip him of the post, saying he was a Christian and that his community certificate too should be cancelled. The matter was referred to the revenue authorities for filing of a report.

The officials visited his home and held inquiries before submitting a report favouring cancellation of the dalit certificate.

Vasikaran said the district collector had sent his notices to an addressee K Victor, which was his name when he was Christian. He had become a Hindu by undergoing a ‘shuddhi’ ceremony by the Arya Samaj at Chennai, and a certificate too has been given by the organisation. Noting that his community has accepted him, he said he had polled more than 2,600 votes, which was another indication of acceptance by his community.

Concurring with him, the bench said Vasikaran had been described as a dalit in his school certificate in 1989. The Sriperumpudur tahsildar issued a proper community certificate in 1996. But, his poll rivals had not raked up his caste status before the election, the bench said.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Related posts

#India – A judgement that polarised women #Feminism #Womenrights

Receiving maintenance is reaffirmation of a traditional role for a woman or, is it an assertion for equality? Maintenance money paid to Aysha, an unwed mother, has put the feminists and the judiciary in a dilemma 

Aruna Burte in The Tribune 

“….IF any couple, subject to their attaining the mandatory age of freedom, who indulge in sexual gratification, then that would be considered as valid marriage and they could be termed as ‘husband and wife‘, as a result of their choice of freedom.” This was stated in a judgement by Justice C.S. Karnan of Chennai High Court, on June 17, 2013. Justice Karnan gave the judgement while modifying an April- 2006 judgement of a family court in a maintenance case. A family court in Coimbatore had ordered a man to pay Rs 500 maintenance per month to his two children and Rs 1000 as litigation expenses and had held that the woman’s wedding with him did not have any documentary proof. Hence, the woman was not entitled to maintenance.

Sandeep Joshi

The judgement created a furore, polarising opinions on the regressive statements of the judgement that equalled all sexual relations between adult man and woman to a marriage, thereby raising questions on the validity of social rituals associated with marriage. Indirectly, the judgement also raised questions about maintenance money to be granted to a woman who is in a relationship but not a wedded wife. While the controversial judgement granted the woman right to maintenance, it also established the woman’s place in a traditional mode – that of a receiver rather than a claimant of equality.

The judgement provided fodder to all sorts of reactions verging on frivolity on social networking sites. All the hype died down a few days later and relegated the real issue to oblivion. The real issue being judicial discretion and awarding of permissible maintenance to a woman who is not wedded to the man she lives with. Strange as the ruling may seem, it must be admitted that Justice Karnan was indeed confronted by the hard facts of the case, which would shock judicial conscience.

The case

The facts of Aysha v. Ozir Hasan (Coimbatore Family Court-2000) case that created such a furore are: Ayesha claimed that she married Ozir Hasan in 1994 and had two children (born on 21.12.1996 and 31.12.1998). They stayed as family until 1999 when he deserted her. She filed for maintenance of Rs.5000 as her husband’s earning was Rs.25000 in the year 2000. She submitted proofs of birth certificates of her two children, with her husband’s signature on the caesarean operation of the second child, a family certificate where his signature appears as head of the family and witness of the doctor who performed tubectomy on her. The family court granted maintenance of Rs.500 per child and Rs.1000 towards court expenses to the woman on 28.4.2006 and denied maintenance for lack of documentary proof of her marriage. She appealed to the high court. Justice C.S. Karnan revised the family court order and granted Rs.500 maintenance to the woman from the date of petition i.e. September 2000 till May 2013, arrears to be paid in three months and thereafter Rs.500 every month. The fact of awarding maintenance to the deserted woman is creditable. But the judgement fails on two grounds – one, it is full of flawed reasoning and two, it does not award legally permissible amount of maintenance to the woman.

Is it travesty of justice?

The main issue in this case was to establish woman’s status in the absence of sufficient documentary proofs of marriage. The proof of five years of co-habitation along with birth certificates of children was enough ground to grant maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. The woman and the man in question were not married earlier. They had no third party encumbrance. They were of legal age. What needed was to expand the definition of ‘wife’ as in some of the earlier judgements of the Supreme Court. For example, in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) case of 1991, where the man had denied being married to the woman. There was no documentary proof of their marriage. The proof of a fairly long period of cohabitation was submitted. The man extended the argument that he had married earlier. However, he could not submit proof for his argument. Therefore, the Supreme Court declared that the man is liable to pay maintenance to Vimala. In another case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999) the court said that it is not strictly mandatory to provide documentary proof of marriage under section 125 Cr.P.C. as is needed under the bigamy section Cr.P.C. 494. Under Cr.P.C. 125 if the woman is able to submit proof of co-habitation for a sufficient period of time, the man and woman in the case would be considered as husband and wife. The man has the scope of disproving cohabitation by providing proofs. But if he cannot do so then he is liable to pay maintenance to the woman. The Chennai High Court could and should have made the argument by sighting similar judgements. The judgement did not do so.

Instead, it went on opining (obiter dicta – opinion uttered in giving judgement) on valid marriage, sexual behaviour, and validity or otherwise of registration and host of such matters. In other words, the reasoning of the judgement is based on is seriously problematic. It does not show required judicial discretion which is clear from the following sentences of the judgement:

“This Court is of the view that if a woman aged 18 or above has a sexual relationship with a man, aged 21 or above, and during the course of such relationship, if the woman becomes pregnant, she would henceforth be treated as the ‘wife’ and the man would be treated as the ‘husband’. Even if the girl does not become pregnant after having such sexual relationship with a man but if there is strong documentary evidence to show the existence of such relationship then also the couple involved in such acts would be termed as ‘wife’ and ‘husband’.”

The judgement in the next paragraph states, if there is a dispute the ‘husband’ in such a relationship has to obtain divorce before he marries a second time! It states: “This Court is of the further view that if the bachelor has completed 21 years of age and the spinster 18 years of age respectively then they acquire the freedom of choice as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Consequently, any couple who choose to consummate their sexual cravings then that act becomes a total commitment which adherence to all consequences that may follow except on certain exceptional considerations. Therefore, the marriage formalities as per custom or registering of marriage at a Government Registration Office is only to comply with each one’s respective custom or for the satisfaction of the society.”

‘Hence, the main legal aspect for valid marriage is consummation or sexual interaction…’

Objection my lord!

The court declares the woman in question ‘wife’ and the man ‘husband’ in an arbitrary manner. And hence, the man is liable to pay maintenance to wife. The arguments are problematic for the following reasons:

As shown in the paragraphs above the arguments have no backing of existing law relating to validity of marriage and divorce as also of the previous cases.

* It carries conflicting statements. For example it says, ‘In India there is no need of registration of marriage to prove validity, only the proof of sexual relationship is sufficient’ in the same breath it states, ‘if the couple wants to seek divorce in such cases they should do so legally’. To take legal divorce it will require some documentary proof of a marriage. In one sentence documentary things like registration is trashed and in the next its requirement is stated.

* Due to this conflicting and contradictory statement it raises more questions than answering the existing ones. For example, what about short time sexual relationship? What happens to citizens who are against ‘marriage’ as such? Is registration of marriage absolutely insignificant?

* The choice of words like ‘sexual gratification’ and ‘any couple who want to consummate sexual cravings’ show non-liberal, moralistic, narrow and judgemental attitude towards male-female sexual relations. To declare all consenting sexual relations as marriage is nothing short of assuming the role of moral policing. This attitude hampers the autonomy and privacy of citizens which is a pre-requisite of democracy. Such ideology cannot ensure women’s rights in the end, though it has been the intent of this judgement.

* Such regressive ideology compartmentalises human sexuality into ‘marriage’ and ‘prostitution’. There is patriarchy lurking in it. In fact, men and women are interacting freely due to education, profession, jobs etc. today. The young generation wants to breathe free of restrictions of marriage. Many want to go in for live-in relationships. The horizons of personal freedom are ever increasing. Only liberalism can help to create responsible sexual relationships among the youngsters. The opinions in the judgement are not conducive for creating such milieu in the society. For the sake of protecting women’s right to maintenance, other broader democratic rights—of which women are an integral part, cannot be flouted.

* Lack of legal discretion is dangerous. It is arbitrary and therefore not in the tradition of democracy and liberalism. Democracy allows citizens to exercise autonomy in personal lives.

* The lower courts depend on the judgements of the high courts. Therefore, the high court judges are expected to exercise greater discretion. There is a tradition among judges expressing their perspective while delivering judgements.

This judgement could have done the following:

* Could have ascertained whether the maintenance paid for children is applied from the date of application or not. And whether it is paid regularly, since there are many defaulters.

* Under the same amendment, it was directed to dispose of such cases in 60 days from the date of application. In this case, it was relevant that the judge should have commented upon this aspect.

* Could have increased the limit of maintenance by sighting amendment of 2001 to Cr.P.C.125 wherein the limit of Rs.500 was lifted. Do the high court judges, not only in this case but in many other cases lack knowledge of this amendment or, they do not want to interpret the law in favour of the disadvantaged? With the limit of Rs.500 deleted, judges are free to interpret the amount of maintenance based on the income of the respondent.

* This judgement had the scope to state the need of expanding economic rights of women beyond the sum of maintenance to ‘matrimonial property or community of property’.

The road ahead…

Finally, we have to understand ‘maintenance’ is one side of the coin of women’s secondary status in patriarchy. We need to revive campaigns such as the one initiated for the rights of deserted women by Vijaya Chauk in 1990 of Dhule district in Maharathtra; a long drawn struggle asserting land rights of single women of Bahe village in Maharashtra and present day single women’s struggles. They all demand economic rights of and entitlements for women i.e. jobs, employment opportunities, rightful shelter, right to credit etc. While these struggles outside the perview of courts are important to bring substantial relief and dignity to women, it is equally necessary to critique judgements like these from the point of view of the feminists and the democratic rights of women.

Verdict: Progressive or regressive ?

Two days after he delivered the judgement, which evoked disapproval and criticisms from unpredictable quarters, including on social media, Justice C S Karnan said comments should not be made without fully understanding the verdict.

In a clarificatory order, which would be part of the judgement, the judge said “This court’s order does not in any way run against any religion and is not intended to wound any Indian. The order had not in any way degraded the system of marriage performed as per the various religious and customs and rites among the various communities.”

The writer is a social activist and a free-lance writer

  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="" target="_blank"> #India- A sick, misogynistic state, Maharashtra #Vaw #Womenrights
  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="" target="_blank"> #India – SC order regarding Acid Attack #Vaw #Womenrights
  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="" target="_blank"> #India – Marriage officer humiliates HC woman lawyer #Vaw #WTFnews #Womenrights
  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="" target="_blank">Couple having premarital sex can be termed husband, wife: Madras HC
Enhanced by Zemanta

Related posts

#MadrasHC- issues notice for withdrawal of cases against anti-nuclear activists

Chennai, June 18, 2013


 The Madras High Court on Tuesday ordered issue of notice to Tamil Nadu Government asking why steps were not taken to withdraw cases filed against anti-nuclear activists protesting against Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project.

First Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Kumar Agrawal and Justice M. Sathyanarayanan, ordered notice to the state government and sought reply within three weeks.

The notice was issued on a petition which sought a direction to the state government to withdraw all criminal cases filed against anti-nuclear activists, who have been protesting against the Indo-Russian project in Tirunelveli District.

The petition referred to the Supreme Court’s direction to the state government to withdraw all criminal cases against the protestors.


Related posts

Vanniyar woman ‘sacrifices’ marriage with dalit youth following pressure from community #Vaw

, TNN | Jun 7, 2013,

Vanniyar woman 'sacrifices' marriage with dalit youth following pressure from community
When 22-year-old Divya, who belongs to the vanniyar community, decided to elope and marry a dailt youth, all hell broke loose.
CHENNAI: Divya Nagarajan could barely stand in the Madras high court premises on Thursday. The pressures of a seventh-month ordeal that included a daring elopement, an inter-caste marriage and caste violence, with strong political overtones that spread across Dharmapuri district, sat heavily on her young shoulders. When 22-year-old Divya, who belongs to the vanniyar community, decided to elope and marry a dailt youth, all hell broke loose. Her father Nagarajan committed suicide, promptingvanniyar community members to go on the rampage in the dalit habitation in Natham colony in Dharmapuri district in November last year. “My husband and I are under huge pressure. I have decided to sacrifice my love, my marriage, for the sake of a society that is caste-obsessed, and for the sake of my mother,” Divya told TOI.

There was high drama in the court premises, when, in an unexpected turn of events, Divya, who had braved the storm and stubbornly refused to leave her dalithusband all through the caste turmoil that rocked Dharmapuri, arrived unexpectedly at the Madras high court on Thursday in response to a habeas corpus plea filed by her mother Thenmozhi last year. She had disappeared from her husband’s house on Tuesday night. Her husband E Elavarasan (20), who had filed a ‘missing’ complaint with theDharmapuri town police, was also present in the court. Divya declined to respond to her husband’s attempts to speak to her. But, Elavarasan, appearing shocked, said, “I strongly believe she will not leave me. We have been facing all these troubles only because I am born a dalit.”

Divya said she was under tremendous pressure to leave her husband and that she was in a disturbed state of mind. Her mother and relatives accompanied the young woman, who appeared too weak to even stand on her own, in the court premises. Her marriage to dalit youth Elavarasan in October last year against the wishes of her family precipitated a deep vanniyar-dalit rift not seen in the region for more than a decade. Under pressure from village leaders to advice his daughter to return to the family, Nagaragan committed suicide, triggering violence that spread rapidly in the region. “My father’s death was unexpected. I have been feeling guilty about his suicide, the violence that followed and the houses of dalit families that were burnt down. I am unable to sleep or eat properly due to the trauma,” Divya said, breaking down.

“Now, whenever I think about it, I shiver with fear. I can’t understand why caste plays such a role in our society?” she said. Justifying her decision to suddenly leave her husband and to return to her mother, Divya said, “I have certain responsibilities towards my family. At the same time I am also grateful to Elavarasan, who took good care of me despite the turmoil around us,” she said, adding that she was forced to remove her mangalsutra soon after she reached her mother’s house in Sellankottai in the district.

Divya said she was not kidnapped or forcibly taken away from her husband. “I have been talking to my mother in recent months over phone. I can understand her trauma. Elavarasan and I have also been under huge social pressure,” she said. On Tuesday, when her mother came to Dharmapuri town for medical treatment, Divya decided to meet her and accompany her back home. “It was a tough decision for me,” she Divya, trying to hold back tears.

Listening to her daughter, Thenmozhi said, “I am in a fix. I don’t know whether to be happy because my daughter has returned to me or feel sad that her married life has been shattered.” Embittered by the events, Elavarasan said, “The last three months I thought her mother had a change of heart and was backing us. It is only now that I believe she has been influencing her daughter and is still opposed to our marriage.”


Related posts

Madars HC – Lankan woman seeks Rs 20 lakh for illegal detention #Vaw

TNN Apr 29, 2013, 05.38AM IST

CHENNAI: A Sri Lankan Tamil woman, claiming that her Chennai-based husband had illegally admitted her in a private asylum at Urappakkam here and kept her confined there for 20 months, moved the Madras high court seeking 20 lakh compensation.

A division bench comprising Justice K N Basha and Justice P Devadass, before whom the habeas corpus petition of K Rizmiya came up for hearing, summoned her husband Kaja Mohideen to the court, and then referred the case to be settled through mediation. The mediation has been scheduled for June 5.

Rizmiya’s counsel P Vijendran said she had joined the Abha Hospital in Saudi Arabia as midwife in 2002, and met Kaja Mohideen, a container driver, there. They fell in love and later got married at Ambara in Sri Lanka.

When their daughter was three and half years old, he left for Chennai without informing her. Rizmiya said it took her two years to reach Chennai and trace her husband’s address, only to realize that Kaja Mohideen was already married with two children. He again persuaded her to return to Saudi Arabia, saying the family needed money to settle in Chennai.

According to her, she returned to Chennai in 2008 and insisted that he lived with her. In the guise of taking her to a hospital for treatment, she was admitted in Oxford Mental Health Home at Urappakkam, saying she was insane. Vijendran said Rizmiya said she was in illegal confinement at the ‘home’ for 20 months. She told TOI that she was administered heavy sedatives and fed cheap food by home managers, who later released her after obtaining her signatures on some papers. “I do not know what was written in that paper,” she said in the petition.

Noting that she had worked in Saudi Arabia and given her entire earnings to her husband for nearly seven years, Rizmiya said she had approached the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), chief minister’s special cell and the city police seeking help to reunite with her husband. Since no help came her way, she filed the present petition seeking 20 lakh as compensation.

Rizmiya said in the guise of taking her to a hospital for treatment, her husband Kaja Mohideen admitted her to Oxford Mental Health Home at Urappakkam, saying she was insane


Related posts

Madras court orders CBI enquiry into a ‘ MISSING 17 YEAR OLD BOY “, as CB-CID botched up the investigations

The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India: Request to Provide a Immediate CBI Investigation to my Son's case.



On October 15 of 2011, SANDESH, aged 17, student +1 at Maharishi Vidya Mandir, Hosur, went to a nearby store but he didn’t return back. We looked for him all night but could not find him.  His father  went to the Sipcot Police Station the next day, but my FIRwas lodged only two days later.On 11 July 2012, the Division bench comprising Justices KN Basha and P Devadass ordered the transfer of the Investigation to CB-CID. but the CB-CID also botched up the investigations  and they gave family  an unclaimed body of 40 years old Ias that of  Sandesh’s body,  The familyw ent to court again asking CBI inquiry which was granted  1April 2013 , THE MADRAS COURT HAS ordered CBI inquiry



Even after the FIR was lodged, the police didn’t take any sort of action to trace my son. When I insisted, the talaash format of the Complaint and the Call reports of my son’s mobile were reported only after a month later. I always suspected Raj Kumar I.R (A central excise Inspector as on date) and his wife Hemalatha (a govt. school teacher) as their daughter Monisha had a love affair with my son. And my Son used to attend tuitions held by Monisha’s Mother for past 3 years. Later, I came to know that they are the only one who has the illegal custody of my son, Sandesh.  Although I Tried, My complaint against the above said was never lodged by the Sipcot Police Station and Instead I was threatened by an officer who said not to go against them. When I did I lost my job as Raj Kumar I.R informed my company management not to let me allow my Job. I was a Employee at Aankit Granites Ltd.,And was Production Incharge with a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- And due to Raj Kumar I.R I lost my job, as I took steps against him.

As the Police did not take any sort of steps to trace my son, I, with a prayer many authorities as follows:

Ø  The Sub collector, Hosur

Ø  The  District Collector, Krishnagiri Dist

Ø  The  Assistant Superintendent of Police, Hosur

Ø  The  Superintendent of police, Krishnagiri

Ø  DIG, Salem

Ø  IG, Coimbatore

Ø  DGP, Chennai

Ø  CM- CELL, Tamil Nadu

But there was no response of any kind from them. And my FIR against Raj Kumar I.R and Hemalatha wasn’t lodged and no action was taken.

When I met the DIG, Salem, he in front of me ordered the Superintendent Of Police, Krishnagiri through phone and signed in the petition of mine stating ‘ to alter the case to a kidnapping case and to arrest the accused’, but for some reasons, SP, krishnagiri didn’t do as directed.

Prayer to the MADRAS HIGH COURT to produce my son:

In the Month of December of 2011, I had to file a Habeas Corpus Petition (1908/2011) at the madras High court, as I had no alternate way. I shed all my hopes at the High Court. In the Earlier Prosecutions, first the case was directed to the JSP of Hosur, R.V Ramyabharathi, who stated in her status reports that she is looking for my son and also having a close watch at the Under Suspects. Then, the case was directed to the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, Abhishek Dixit, who tried to close the case with an ulterior motive to save Raj Kumar I.R and Hemalatha.


                                                       When the Matter came up for hearing on 25 June 2012, Additional Public Prosecutor, Govindarajan informed the Division bench comprising Justices KN Basha and P Devadass, that a skull had been recovered and that it would be sent to the Forensic department for Analysis and Scientific Investigation. And the Bench declared my son dead and altered the case to Section 174 of CrPc, without knowing the truth and without any kind of approval from my side. The next hearing was posted to July 9 2012 for the final report of police. The DNA tests were conducted only on 29 June 2012. I always co-operated with the police and give my blood samples knowing the truth that the skull recovered was not that of my son’s but the police never had a co-operation with us.


The Claim made by the police is entirely false. The Skull, which was recovered belongs to a 40 year old whose body was found on 24 October 2011 in a lake at Hosur and a Case was Registered at the Sipcot Police Station (FIR: 374/2011) as a un- identified body. The case was registered at the same Police station where my case is lodged. The skull recovered by the police is not my son’s at all. And also, The SP, Abhishek Dixit always harassed me and my family stating that my son is dead, which is entirely false. And earlier, when the case was directed to the SP, the ID marks of my son were very often replaced with the false ones at the TN police website, without my knowledge.

All this incidents prove a sign of danger to my son.


On 11 July 2012, the Division bench comprising Justices KN Basha and P Devadass ordered the transfer of the Investigation to CB-CID.The bench issued the following order as in the Order copy.

(1)    The Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, Chennai is hereby directed to nominate a competent officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to take up the further investigation in this case within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also intimate the first respondent about the nomination of the said officer.

(2)    The First Respondent, in turn, on receipt of the intimation from the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, Chennai, shall hand over the entire records relating to the Crime Nos.368/2011 and 374/2011 to the said nominated officer within a period of seven [7] days from the date of receipt of the said intimation.

(3)    The Said Nominated officer shall take all efforts to expedite the investigation and complete the same as expeditiously as possible and shall file a final report, more particularly, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the records from the first respondent.

(4)    Post the matter after three months.

This order was issued on 11-07-2012 for the HCP 1908/2011.


I received my copy of the order. Although the Copy of the order was made ready and sent it to Additional Director General Of police, CB-CID but there was no response. When I enquired through phone and went personally at the Office They said that they haven’t received the Copy of the Order and were Helpless until they had the Order copy. I also sent a copy of the order to the ADGP, CBCID Chennai by mail but they said that would accept the one which is only from the Court. And there was no response from two [2] Months. The Investigation of the case came to stand still.

As there was responsible from CB- CID, I filed a petition again in the Madras High court C on September 3. The petition SR no: 36968 with serial 11 and the proceeding are awaited. On September 5, an Officer from CB CID called me to inform that he was the nominated officer. When asked, he said he was the nominated only on September 4. When I questioned the reason for delay, the reply that it could be due to ‘Administrative’ reasons. The officer appointed was Rajesh, DSP, Krishnagiri- Salem, CB –CID and Vijayraghavan, Inspector CB CID, Krishnagiri unit. In this case, Each and every moment is precious and one’s life at risk, but the CB- CID started their investigation after two [2] months from the date of order passed. By facing all these problems, I have no more belief in State Police and the CB CID of the state.

I  stay here in hosur with my wife and two children. Both of my sons study at Maharishi Vidya Mandir, Sipcot, Hosur, Elder son Sandesh in +1 and the younger Sandeep in 9th Standard. We all were leading a decent happy life but now, we are just helpless. There’s no trace of my son yet.

I hereby end this hopefully written Petition, believing that a CBI Investigation is ordered to my Son’s Case, to trace my son Sandesh Immediate. And Take Necessary Actions against the people for their wrong doings.


for more information contact- [email protected] and
Contact number’s are 09486071246, 09629676704.

Now after a year and half MADRAS COURT ORDERS CBI INQUIRY,




Related posts

Bombay HC approves Sterlite Industries merger proposal, but ball is in Madras HC

Press Trust of India | Updated On: April 03, 2013 15:44 (IST)
New Delhi: Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd today said the Bombay High Court has approved the merger of the mining firm with Madras Aluminium Company, Sterlite Energy Ltd, Vedanta Aluminium and Sesa Goa.

“The Honourable High Court of Bombay…approved the scheme of amalgamation and arrangement amongst Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd, Madras Aluminium Company Ltd, Sterlite Energy Ltd, Vedanta Aluminium Ltd and Sesa Goa Ltd and their respective shareholders and creditors to create Sesa Sterlite,” the company said in a filing to BSE.

However, the merger is subject to approval of Madras High Court, it said.

“The scheme is also subject to approval of the Honourable High Court of Madras, wherein the hearings have been completed and the order is awaited,” the statement said.

Sterlite Industries (India) is a leading metal and mining firm which produces aluminium, copper, zinc, lead, silver and commercial energy.

Besides India, the company has operations in countries like Australia, Namibia, South Africa and Ireland.

Related posts