CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Thursday wanted the division bench hearing pleas against illegal banners to consider reimposing prohibition on printing the pictures of ‘living persons’ in banners and hoardings.
On Thursday, a vacation bench comprising Justices S Vaidyanathan and Justice C Saravanan wanted the division bench of Justices M Sathyanarayana and N Seshasayee that is hearing the banner-related cases, to consider the suggestion.
The justices also wanted the bench to consider whether the authority sanctioning permission for erection of such banners could call for furnishing Aadhaar card details from the printer concerned and the person requesting erection of banners so that the details of such people including their photo identities are available in the records for taking action for any breach of rules and guidelines.
The bench was hearing the plea moved by Subashree’s father, R Ravi, seeking a law to give maximum punishment to those who put up such illegal banners.
Ravi also wanted the court to direct the Tamil Nadu government to pay him `1 crore as compensation for his daughter’s death and constitute a special investigation team (SIT) to conduct a probe into the September 12 accident.
The vacation bench in its order also observed that in October, 2017, an order from single judge Vaidyanathan at a single sitting issued a blanket ban on the use of pictures of living persons in banners and hoardings, even if due permission is obtained for erecting them.
However, in December 2017 the first bench of the court set aside the order on the ground that no statute or rule prohibits such inclusion of pictures in banners.On Thursday, the vacation bench adjourned the case to October 23.
Jayagopal’s bail petition adjourned
Justice B Pugazhendi adjourned the hearing on the bail petition of S Jayagopal, an accused in the case of erecting the banner that killed Subashree, to October 15 after the prosecution sought time to respond in the case.Jayagopal submitted that it was his party cadre who put up the banners for the marriage function out of ‘love and affection’ and that he did not have any role in erecting them.He also blamed the police department for mechanically adding his name in the First Information Report without carrying out a proper investigation.