Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Hindu
The Hindu
National
The Hindu Bureau

T.N. Minister Senthilbalaji case | Third judge decides to tabulate differences of opinion between two judges who delivered split verdict

Justice C.V. Karthikeyan, the third judge named by Madras High Court Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala to hear a habeas corpus petition filed by arrested Minister V. Senthilbalaji’s wife following a split verdict by two judges of a Division Bench, on Thursday decided to first list down the differences of opinion between the two judges before proceeding with the hearing.

After taking up the case for a formal hearing on Thursday, the judge told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and Senior Counsel N.R. Elango, representing the petitioner Megala, that clause 36 of the Letters Patent requires the differing judges to list out the points of differences before referring the matter to the third judge.

Since such a procedure had not been followed in the present case, Justice Karthikeyan decided to take a cue from a 2007 judgement of the High Court in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam versus State Election Commission wherein it was held that the third judge could also frame the points of differences before proceeding with the hearing of the case.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.