Madras High Court dismisses PIL against tax exemption to ‘Lingaa’ claiming its a Sanskrit and not a Tamil word
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Petitioner | V. Amritharaj |
| Date of Disposal | 9 April 2015 |
In an interesting matter, Madrash High Court’s division bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjay Koshan Kaul and Justice T.S. Sivagnanam dismissed a PIL filed against grant of tax exemption to Rajinikanth’s Lingaa.
Petitioner claimed that Lingaa was not a Tamil word, but a Sanskrit one and hence the 22 July 2006 – State government notification which gave tax exemption to Tamil films which have name in that language and films which uphold Tamil culture, will not apply to Lingaa.
Petitioner alleged that the tax exemption was given to Lingaa due to the influence of Rajinikanth and hence argued that the tax exemption granted to Lingaa was illegal. However dismissing the PIL, Court observed:
The frivolous Public Interest Litigation is sought to be withdrawn by the petitioner, after some arguments. An endorsement is also made. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Hyderabad HC dismisses PIL against shifting of Telengana Secretariat over alleged ‘vaastu’ reasons + cost of Rs. 1000.
| Court | High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad |
| Case Title | Mohammed Haji v. The State of Telangana – Public Interest Litigation No. 47 of 2025 |
| Date of Disposal | 31 March 2015 |
Mohammed Haji, reportedly an Aam Aadmi Party leader of Hyderabad, filed a PIL against the state government’s move to shift the Secretariat to another place in the city. He alleged that the Telangana government had decided to shift the existing State Secretariat to Erragadda under the guise of ‘Vaastu defect’. However the Court observed:
We have gone through each and every page of file. We do not find any single word of ‘Vaastu’ used in such decision.
Court observed that after the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 was passed, old Secretariat had been serving both the State Governments i.e., State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh because Hyderabad is the capital of both the States. It noted that one day or the other, one of the States has to shift its own Secretariat. Showing its displeasure over the PIL, it said that the “petitioner before approaching the Court, should have verified correctness of this news item by collecting information about the reasons for decision of shifting to say the least under Right to Information Act”.
Bench dismissed the PIL with a fine of Rs. 1,000. It held:
According to us, this Writ Petition is a misdirected instrument to abuse the judicial process. This Writ Petition is absolutely meritless, frivolous and intended only to create sensationalism. Any Court always discourages this sort of misadventure. However, we feel that the time has come to curb firmly this sort of misadventure of a section of member of the public of coming to this Court in the name of public interest at the drop of the hat. We therefore dismiss the Writ Petition with costs assessed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Committee, within a period of fortnight.
Madras High Court disallows child marriage, observes Prohibition of Child Marriages Act is not against Muslim personal law.
| Court | Madras High Court – Madurai Bench |
| Petitioner | Social Democratic Party of India leader Mohammed Abbas |
Petitioner filed the PIL seeking a direction to officials not to interfere in marriages solemnised under the Muslim personal law by invoking the Prohibition of Child Marriages Act of 2006, which bars marriage of girls below 18 years of age. He contended that the Muslim personal law allows marriage of Muslim girls between 15 and 18. Petitioner was challenging the action of a district social welfare officer stopping the proposed marriage of a 16-year old girl.
However dismissing the PIL, the division bench of Justices S. Tamilvanan and V.S. Ravi held:
The Prohibition of Child Marriages Act is not against Muslim personal law. The act enacted for the welfare of the girl children prevails over the personal law. The former helps the girls get education, empowerment etc. [The Telegraph]
Allahabad High Court dismisses old PIL against ‘Ram Leela’
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Case Title | Miscellaneous Bench No. 10604 of 2013 – Amitabh Thakur & Another v. Sri Sanjay Leela Bhansali |
| Date of Disposal | 13 April 2015 |
Months after Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s film ‘Ram Leela’ was released, Allahabad High Court dismissed a 2013 PIL filed by IPS officer Amitabh Thakur and another person. The petitioners had sought a writ of certiorari cancelling/quashing the Certificate of public exhibition granted under Cinematographers Act 1952 on the ground that the movie had “hurt” religious sentiments.
PIL also sought:
“…a general mandamus reprimanding and directing the concerned respondents to be more vigilant in their approach as regards religious sentiments of all religious, while dealing with issues related with religions and religious sentiments, during the process of grant of certificate of public exhibition to other films in future.”
However since the movie was released long back without any stay, division bench of chief justice D Y Chandrachud and justice Shree Narain Shukla dismissed the PIL observing:
The petition has been rendered infructuous since the cinematographic film has been released for public exhibition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
