YouTuber Chavku Shankar heard a plea filed by Kamala’s mother Kamala challenging the order to imprison him under the Gangster Act. Chennai A bench comprising Justices Swaminathan and Balaji of the High Court delivered a dissenting judgment.
Justice Swaminathan quashed the order of imprisonment of Chava Shankar under the Gangster Act. However, Justice Balaji had ordered the Tamil Nadu government to respond to the plea of Chav Shankar’s mother, saying that he could not issue an order without giving time to respond to the petition.
After the two judges gave a different verdict, the case was referred to a third judge. G. as the third judge. Madras High Court Chief Justice Mahadevan issued an order appointing Jayachandran.
G. who investigated this case. Jayachandran, recently Judge G.R. Swaminathan has said that the order has been issued urgently.
Also, the basic phrase “Latin maxim audi alteram partem” which is at the beginning of the law book is not used in it. That is, the sentence says that no case should be decided without a fair trial. That basic sentence is not used in this case. Because the case was heard on the same day the notice was given. Thus, the prosecution was not given sufficient opportunity and sufficient time to respond. Madras High Court Judge G. Jayachandran said.
3rd Judge Jayachandran criticized that in this investigation, the first lesson in law colleges is ‘LATIN MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM’, which insists that the other side should also be properly investigated, and GR Swaminathan has issued an order in haste without following it.
Judge G. Ara Swaminathan. Madras High Court Judge G. Jayachandran said in a writ petition challenging the remand of YouTuber ‘Chavku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar that the state police was biased by showing a penchant for issuing hasty orders without consulting the bench partner (Justice PP Balaji). stated.
Justice G.R. did not give time to the government to file the counter affidavit and was keen to pass hasty orders without consulting the bench partner. Swaminathan has done.
Because the case was heard on the same day the notice was given. Thus, the prosecution was not given sufficient opportunity and sufficient time to respond. The government was given very little fair chance. It is against the law
Even if someone meets the judge on a case-by-case basis and tries to change his mind, the judge should be impartial and neutral. Justice G. Jayachandran said that a decision should not be taken in haste.
In this situation, Madras High Court Judge G. Jayachandran has expressed a new opinion. In that, some judges will issue what kind of orders. Some lawyers then pass resolutions in favor of such judges.
This court is fair to all. Madras High Court Judge G Jayachandran said that caste, religion or what they wear on their body is not looked at. Recently, while Justice G Jayachandran had commented against Justice Swaminathan, some lawyers issued a resolution in favor of Justice Swaminathan.
