Chennai:

The Madras High Court today directed the Ministry of Civil Aviation to make announcements in Tamil mandatory in all domestic flights operating to and from the airports in Tamil Nadu.

The court directive came following a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a person, C Kanagaraj, the World Tamil Research Trust President, who urged the court to make announcements in Tamil mandatory in all flights operating from the airports in the state.

Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu said that courts could not issue a positive direction as sought in the PIL.

The division bench said that the Central government could be directed only to consider a representation made by the litigant within a period of 12 weeks.

The first division bench issued such a direction and disposed of the PIL petition pending since 2021.

The petitioner had contended that announcements in Tamil were being made even in foreign countries such as Singapore, Malaysia and Sri Lanka.

In the submission before the Madras High Court, he asked why should such announcements could not be made mandatory in all domestic flights operated to and from Tamil Nadu.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Chennai:

The body of K Armstrong, BSP’s Tamil Nadu chief who was hacked to death near his Chennai home Friday, cannot be buried at the party’s office in the state capital, the Madras High Court ruled today, upholding the DMK government’s stand.

The court said K Armstrong’s body can be buried in a one-acre privately-owned plot in the adjoining Thiruvalluvar district. It added that the funeral procession taken out by BSP supporters must be held peacefully.

Earlier, the slain BSP leader’s wife K Porkodi had filed a petition in court, seeking its approval to bury the body at the Chennai party office. The petitioners argued that the 2,600 square feet was owned by the BSP.

Additional Advocate General J Ravindran, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, opposed the petition. “It is a residential area. Without going into merits, we have identified three places around 2,000 sq ft each close to the BSP office and their residence that they can choose for burial or memorial, whatever they want,” he said, according to Bar and Bench.

Justice V Bhavani Subbarayan noted that burial is only allowed at pre-notified places and the petitioners would need the state government’s permission.

“We have already passed a government order rejecting their demand as it is a primary residential area, thickly populated, inadequate approach road, and the building itself doesn’t have requisite permissions,” Mr Ravindran said.

Addressing Senior Advocate Chandrasubbu, appearing for K Armstrong’s wife, the judge said, “Sentiment is different, but you cannot make a burial in a residential area as per the rules. That is why I am asking if you can choose another place.

“I understand your emotions but you have to understand what the court is saying. There will be a law and order problem and everyone will suffer then. This area has small lanes. You need a bigger place where thousands of people can gather. If something happens, you will not be responsible, but we all saw what happened in Hathras stampede,” the court said.

Mr Ravindran said that the state government has a “heart, but our hands are tied because we have to go by rules”.

“All of us are with them. We understand at this moment everyone is anguished and angry. But we can’t risk a law and order problem,” the judge added.

The body is currently at the Corporation School Ground in Chennai so that K Armstrong’s supporters can pay tribute.

“I am saying this as a sister and not a judge. Complete the burial at the place that the State is giving now. Later you purchase a bigger area and we can decide on shifting the body there. You can’t keep the body just like that for so many hours,” the court said earlier today.

The petitioner then chose the Thiruvalluvar spot. The local panchayat has made the necessary arrangements. K Armstrong’s family had also said they wanted to build a memorial. The court has asked them to proceed with the funeral and said that they can approach the state government over the memorial later.

After delivering the verdict, the court told the petitioner that it is aware that their loss cannot be compensation. “But also know that the State has been helpful to you.”

“Let him be in peace now. Go support his wife. She has a small baby to take care of. Nobody is against anybody here,” it added.

The 47-year-old state BSP chief was hacked to death by at least six people near his home on Friday evening. Eight suspects have been arrested so far and the city police have ruled out any political angle to the heinous crime.

BSP chief Mayawati has demanded a CBI investigation into the attack. “I urge the state government, especially the CM, to ensure law and order in the state. The weaker sections, in particular, should feel safe. Had the government been serious, the accused would have been arrested. Since that is not the case, we urge the state government to refer the case to the CBI,” she said.

Chennai (Tamil Nadu):

Amid the debate and political row over DMK minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s comments, the Madras High Court has said that Sanatana Dharma is a set of ‘eternal duties’ which can be gathered from multiple sources relating to Hinduism or those practising the Hindu way of life, and includes “the duty to the nation, duty to the King, King’s duty to his people, duty to one’s parents and Gurus, care for the poor, and whole lot of other duties”.

Justice N Seshasayee said in his order on September 15 that the court is conscious of “the very vociferous, and at time noisy debates on pro and anti Sanatana Dharma” and the court could not help pondering over with genuine concern for what is going around.

The court also said that when free speech is exercised in matters pertaining to religion, it is necessary for one to ensure that no one is injured and “free speech cannot be hate speech”.

“Somewhere, an idea appears to have gained ground that Sanatana Dharma is all about, and only about, promoting casteism and untouchability. Untouchability in a country of equal citizens cannot be tolerated, and even if it is seen as permitted somewhere within the principles of ‘Sanatana dharma’, it still cannot have a space to stay, since Article 17 of the Constitution has declared that untouchability has been abolished. It is part of the fundamental right,” the court said.

“And, under Art. 51A(a), it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to, ‘abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions..’.  Therefore, untouchability, either within or outside Sanatana Dharma can no longer be Constitutional, though sadly it still exits,” it added.

The court referred to the arguments on behalf of the petitioner Elangovan and said he had submitted with considerable force that nowhere Sanatana Dharma either approves or promotes untouchability, and it only insists the practitioners of Hinduism to treat all equally.

“As religious practices move with time, some bad or evil practices may un-noticingly creep into it. They are the weeds required to be removed. But why should the crop be chopped?’ – This, in short the essence of the submissions of the learned counsel,” the court noted.  

The court was hearing a petition challenging a circular issued by a local government college asking girl students to share their thoughts on the topic ‘Opposition to Sanatana’ on the birth anniversary of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK founder CN Annadurai.

The court disposed of the plea after noting that the circular had already been withdrawn by the college.

“This Court is conscious to the very vociferous, and at time noisy debates on pro and anti Sanatana Dharma. It has also broadly understood Sanatana Dharama as a set of ‘eternal duties’, and that it cannot be traced to one specific literature, but has to be gathered from multiple sources which, either relate to Hinduism, or which those who practice the Hindu way of life, have come to accept,” the court said.

“It includes the duty to the nation, duty to the King, King’s duty to his people, duty to one’s parents and Gurus, care for the poor, and a whole lot of other duties. If the topic chosen by the impugned circular is now tested on the plane of these duties, it would then mean that all these duties are liable to be destroyed. Should not a citizen love his country? Is he not under a duty to serve his nation? Should not the parents be cared? With genuine concern for what is going round, this Court could not help pondering over it,” the order said.

The court said it is conscious that every citizen has a fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

“While right to free speech is inalienable, it is also important to underscore that one is adequately informed, as it adds value to what is spoken. It should not be forgotten that the Constitutional framers have very consciously not made right to free speech as an absolute right. They have restricted it with Article 19(2),” the order said.

It said Article 25 has granted all citizens the fundamental right to practice any religion.

“Every religion is founded on faith, and faith by nature accommodates irrationality. Therefore, when free speech is exercised in matters pertaining to religion, it is necessary for one to ensure that no one is injured,” the court said.

“In other words, free speech cannot be hate speech, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned. The users of free speech must not ignore to factor these aspects while exercising their right. If this is ignored, the course of any debate will get derailed, and the objective behind it will lose significance,” it added.

The court said it would be appreciable, if free speech encourages dispassionate, and healthy public debates, and helps society to move forward.

“How free speech is seen exercised these days? If the free speech made through the social media is taken as a basis, anyone who has little to do with science, or rocket, or space, will be lecturing on rocket science. While this is also accommodated within the right to free speech, yet it may be helpful to gain some attention, and may not take it beyond.”

“It would be appreciable, if free speech encourages dispassionate, and healthy public debates, and help the society to move forward, along the lines which the Constitution envisages. At the end of the day, every citizen traces his existence to the Constitution, and hence it is his duty to abide by its values, its ethos, and to hold an uncompromising abidance to its spirits. This should not be forgotten. Hope it prevails,” the order said.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)