Author of several landmark judgments calls it a day

After last day’s work Justice Chandru took the suburban train home

March 09, 2013 02:49 am | Updated 02:49 am IST - CHENNAI

Justice K. Chandru

Justice K. Chandru

Justice K. Chandru, a Judge of the Madras High Court, who delivered several judgments that had a social impact, retired on Friday. With his retirement, the strength of the High Court has reduced to 47 against the sanctioned strength of 60.

Mr. Justice Chandru was made an Additional Judge of the High Court on July 31, 2006 and a Permanent Judge on November 9, 2009. He had disposed of nearly 96,000 cases, both at the Principal Seat and at the Madurai Bench.

He would be remembered for several of his landmark judgments including a ruling that women could become priests in temples. He had also ruled that there should be common burial grounds, irrespective of caste, instead of such facilities based on caste, and press freedom could not be stifled.

Only recently, he held that staging of plays needed no police permission. He held as ultra vires the Constitution certain provisions of the Dramatic Performances Act. What he himself considered significant, was a judgment that there should be communal reservation in the appointment of noon-meal organisers. Known for his simplicity, he did away with some of the paraphernalia that usually accompanied a Judge.

He already made it clear that he would not accept any farewell on the date of his retirement. Before leaving, he submitted a final declaration of his assets to the Acting Chief Justice, R.K. Agrawal.

After the day’s work, he left home by a suburban train. He said he had already purchased a monthly season ticket for rail travel.

Talking to newspersons in the evening, Mr. Justice Chandru, who was clad in a dhoti and shirt, said he was fully satisfied with his tenure as a Judge. About his future plans, he said he had decided not to practise in the Supreme Court or accept any posting in tribunals. He would involve himself in public service as an advocate and in public debates.

Answering a question, he said advocates should not boycott courts as it would affect their clients. They should also not seek frequent adjournments. This would go a long way in the quick disposal of cases.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.