Who is Justice R. Mahadevan?

Justice R. Mahadevan, born on June 10, 1963, in Chennai, has had an illustrious legal career. A law graduate from Chennai, he is known for his dedication, expertise, and significant contributions to the judiciary.

How was the Career Journey of Justice R. Mahadevan?

• Justice R. Mahadevan completed his law degree at the prestigious Madras Law College and enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in 1989.
• He practiced law for 25 years, specializing in indirect taxes, customs, and Central Excise, while also handling cases in civil, criminal, and writ jurisdictions.
• Justice Mahadevan held several notable government positions, including:
  • Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for the Government of Tamil Nadu.
  • Additional Central Government Standing Counsel.
  • Senior Panel Counsel for the Government of India at the Madras High Court.
• He was elevated as a Judge of the Madras High Court in 2013, bringing extensive legal experience and acumen to the bench.
• On May 24, 2024, he assumed the role of Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, showcasing his leadership and judicial expertise.
• His tenure at the Madras High Court was marked by fair and judicious decisions, contributing significantly to the cause of justice in Tamil Nadu.
• He took oath as the judge of Supreme Court on 18th July 2024.

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice R. Mahadevan?

• Gokul Abimanyu v. Union of India (2024)
  • A writ petition was filed to direct the Bar Council of India (BCI) to reduce the application fee for the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE).
  • The petition was based on a representation dated January 19, 2024, by the petitioner.
  • The division bench, comprising Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed that there is no statutory provision prescribing a specific amount for the examination fee, unlike the enrolment fee.
  • The Court noted that the examination fee charged by BCI is Rs. 3,500/-, which it deemed reasonable and not exorbitant.
• R. Rajesh v. Union of India (2023)
  • An Advocate filed a writ petition challenging an order by the National Company Law Board imposing a dress code for Advocates.
  • The petitioner sought to have the order declared ultra vires, null and void, and quashed as illegal and arbitrary.
  • The division bench held that the impugned order was issued without authority and is illegal.
  • The Court ruled that Tribunals do not have the authority to prescribe dress codes for Advocates appearing before them.
• People’s Watch v. Home Secretary (2023)
  • A petition was filed requesting the appointment of trained and skilled non-official visitors to jails, as per Rule 507 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983.
  • These visitors were to address prisoners' grievances and assist in improving correctional administration.
  • The court focused on the need for prison reforms to create a better environment and improve prison culture.
  • It was emphasized that prisoners must enjoy their right to a dignified life, even while incarcerated.
  • The court issued specific instructions to the authorities to improve prison administration and implement necessary reforms.
• VSJ Dinakaran v. CIT (2022)
  • The appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition that upheld the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax's order.
  • The case involved proceedings under Section 24 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
  • Under this section, only a prima facie opinion (initial reasonable belief) about the transaction being benami is needed to take action.
  • The Division Bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad found that such a prima facie opinion was validly made in this case.
  • The court upheld the Deputy Commissioner’s orders to continue the provisional attachment of the property.