File addl status report on Domestic Violence Act implementation: HC

A division bench comprising Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice M Nirmal Kumar posted the plea for further hearing to May 20 when the additional status report should be filed.

It also recorded the petitioner advocate Sudha Ramalingam’s submission seeking to disseminate the facilities brought about to rescue women in distress through print and visual media, as most of them are from poor economic background and could not be expected to possess mobile phone and other electronic medium to communicate.

She also submitted that in Krishnagiri, the mobile number given was wrong. In the case of Anganwadi workers, the steps taken by the Social Welfare Department had not reached them, she said, adding that they should be made aware of it and educated.

She also stated that though there were 110 counsellors, their mobile numbers have not been given. If all these issues were addressed, there could be some solution to the problems faced by the womenfolk on account of domestic violence being perpetrated upon them, she said.

The Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTN&P) to file a  status report on a plea that sought Rs 50,000 to advocates and Rs 25,000 to advocate clerks

who are facing loss of income caused by the lockdown.

A division bench comprising Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice m Nirmal Kumar sought the status report after observing that the courts were unable to function as usual due to the abnormal situation that is prevailing.

“This court can further take note of the fact that most of the lawyers depend upon the brief they are getting, and it is also alive to the difficulties and problems faced by the advocates as well as the advocate clerks,” the bench said.

“It also appears that BCTN&P is making every endeavour to set right their problems,” the bench added, while posting the plea to May 13 to enable the council to file the status report.

BCTN&P counsel CK Chandrasekaran submitted that as the available scheme provides for financial assistance only to the families of the deceased advocates, an amendment ought to be brought to the rule to enable granting the petitioner’s prayer.

However, he pointed out that the council has unanimously resolved to extend financial help to those needy advocates who are unable to meet their day-to-day expenses due to the lock down.

Appearing as party- in-person, senior counsel AE Chelliah cited the partial functioning of the HC and non-functioning of subordinate courts resulting in lack of work to both advocates and clerks, and sought a reasonable amount as an interim measure from the Advocates’ Welfare Fund as well as the Clerks’ Welfare Fund maintained by the BCTN&P. 

The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea seeking distribution of Rs 15,000 each to every ration card holder in the State, holding that the sought relief involves a fiscal policy decision and also spending of all precious amount available in State’s coffers.

A division bench comprising Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice M Nirmal Kumar said, “...In the light of the limitation involved as to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially with regard to the Fiscal Policy matter, it (high court) cannot issue any positive direction in this regard.” The bench took judicial notice of the fact that on account of the onset and spread of pandemic COVID-19, almost all countries are facing health issues and economic slowdown.

K Bharathi, an advocate, had submitted in his PIL that on account of the lockdown getting extended to May 3, the Rs 1,000 monetary compensation announced by the State government to every ration card holder will be wholly inadequate.