Draft:A.D. Jagadish Chandira

A.D. Jagadish Chandira (born February 15, 1966) is a Judge of the Madras High Court, Tamil Nadu, India. Chandira is from Virapandianpatnam Village, Thoothukudi district.

His extensive legal career includes serving as an Additional Public Prosecutor at the Madras High Court in 2010. In addition to this role, he has also contributed his expertise as a Panel Counsel for the State Human Rights Commission and served as the Honorary Legal Advisor to the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women in Chennai.

Early life and education
Justice Chandira began his legal education at Madurai Law College, but later transferred to Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College in Chennai, where he completed his law degree. He was enrolled as an advocate in 1989. Early in his career, Justice Chandira honed his legal skills at M/s. King and Partridge from 1989 to 1991, where he worked as a Junior Advocate focusing on civil cases.

He then continued his practice as a Junior Advocate in the office of Mr. P. Peppin Fernando, further specializing in civil litigation. Eventually, Justice Chandira expanded his expertise to criminal law, joining the office of his maternal uncle, Shri G.R. Edmund. There, he practiced extensively in both trial and appellate criminal matters, developing a profound acumen that would later define his judicial career.

Career
Justice Chandira of the Madras High Court exemplified judicial vigilance and integrity in his handling of the contempt case involving actor Ilavarasu. Demonstrating meticulous attention to detail, Justice Chandira navigated through conflicting statements and evidence with precision. He insisted on corroborative evidence, such as mobile location and call records, to ascertain the truth, thereby upholding the sanctity of the judicial process. His firm stance against dishonesty in court and his insistence on accountability not only reinforced the legal standards but also highlighted his commitment to justice. By demanding transparency and truthfulness, he safeguarded the principles of law, ensuring that all parties are held to the highest standards of integrity.

In 1997, he began his individual practice, showcasing a broad range of expertise across various legal disciplines. He practiced in both trial and appellate matters, dealing with civil and criminal cases. Additionally, his practice extended to Consumer Commissions, other various commissions, and writ jurisdictions, demonstrating his versatility and depth of legal knowledge.

After being appointed to the high court, he distinguished himself through his judicious reasoning and integrity. He presided over several significant cases, contributing to the development of legal precedents that continue to influence the judicial system.

Awards and recognition
Justice Chandira later also served as the Honorary Associate Editor of the Madras Law Times (Criminal). , where he oversaw the publication of pivotal legal analyses and commentary. His editorial work helped shape the discourse on criminal law, making substantial contributions to the field.

He was appointed as an Amicus curiae to assist the Court in the matter of Katta Panchayat in the year 2016.

Personal Life
Justice Chandira was born to Prof. Dasan Fernando and Mrs. Metilda Dasan. His father, who passed away prematurely, was a respected academic, serving as the Vice Principal and Head of the Department of Chemistry at Aditanar College of Arts and Science in Tiruchendur. Following her husband's untimely demise, his mother, Mrs. Metilda Dasan, dedicated herself to managing their household as a homemaker.

Justice Chandira is married to Mrs. Chiara Jagadish, who holds degrees in M.A. (Public administration) and M.Sc. (Counseling and Guidance). Despite her academic achievements, she has chosen to focus on her role as a homemaker, supporting their family and personal endeavours.

Notable cases and judgments
In a high-profile legal case before the Madras High Court, Justice Chandra played a crucial role in a dispute involving actor Ilavarasu and the Greater Chennai Police. The case originated from a 2018 complaint lodged by the Southern India Cinematographers Association, which accused its former employees of financial misconduct. Ilavarasu, asserting that the police had delayed their investigation, came under scrutiny for allegedly providing false information regarding his whereabouts during the investigation period. Justice Chandra conducted a thorough review of the evidence presented, including data pertaining to mobile location and call records, to determine the factual basis of the claims. He issued a stern warning to Ilavarasu about the consequences of dishonesty in legal proceedings, emphasizing the critical importance of transparency and accountability. His diligent handling of the case highlighted the judiciary's dedication to upholding the principles of justice and ensuring a meticulous evaluation of all evidence.

In January 2024, he offered an insightful commentary on the delicate balance required in criminal proceedings. He articulated these views while deliberating on a petition filed by a man requesting the transfer of his trial. Justice Chandira stressed the significance of the principle, "justice delayed is justice denied," which advocates for the prompt delivery of justice. However, he cautioned against allowing this principle to precipitate rushed judgments that might undermine the quality of justice delivered. He underscored the necessity of ensuring that a speedy trial does not compromise the defense's opportunities to present their case or infringe upon their rights. This emphasis on maintaining a careful and balanced approach in legal proceedings reflects Justice Chandira’s commitment to upholding both efficiency and fairness in the administration of justice.

During the hearing, the organization's counsel, V. Suresh, sought additional time to file a related petition, which was under consideration by the court. Justice Chandira's acknowledgment of Arappor Iyakkam's meticulous approach underscores the judiciary's appreciation for diligent and well-supported efforts in combating corruption in public service. This stance reflects a judicial perspective that values thorough investigations and the integral role of credible evidence in legal proceedings.

In August 2023, Justice Chandira granted bail to Advocate Aashhik Ali, who had been arrested under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The charges against Ali included Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(A), Section 22(c), and Section 29(1), pertaining to the alleged handling and trafficking of narcotics.

In his judgment, Justice Chandira determined that Ali satisfied all the conditions for bail as specified under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which necessitates the court to find reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offense and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. He noted that the evidence against Ali primarily involved money transactions, which did not conclusively link him to the narcotics offenses charged. His decision to grant bail was predicated on the lack of substantial evidence directly implicating Ali in the drug trafficking activities alleged.

This ruling highlights the judiciary's emphasis on the necessity for substantial evidence when adjudicating bail in cases involving serious charges. It underscores the court's commitment to thorough scrutiny and the principles of justice, ensuring that the rights of the accused are safeguarded during legal proceedings.

In June 2023, Justice Chandira demonstrated a commendable commitment to inclusivity and empathy through his thoughtful support of Gayathri, a differently-abled law intern. Gayathri, a fourth-year student at the School of Excellence in Law in Tamil Nadu, had recently commenced her internship in Justice Chandira's office. To facilitate her integration and comfort, Justice Chandira arranged for a special seating position for her during Wednesday's court proceedings. This arrangement not only ensured her comfort but also enabled her to more effectively follow and engage with the legal proceedings.

His proactive approach in creating an accommodating work environment highlights his dedication to fostering inclusivity within the judicial system, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their physical abilities, have the opportunity to contribute and learn effectively.

In June 2023, he issued a directive to the State Public Prosecutor, highlighting the importance of police preparedness during court proceedings. This action was taken during a bail petition hearing where it became evident that the police officer deputed by the investigating agency to assist the public prosecutor was inadequately familiar with the case details. Observing this shortfall, Justice Chandira instructed the State Public Prosecutor to ensure that all police personnel appearing in court are well-prepared and knowledgeable about the particulars of their assigned cases.

Justice Chandira’s directive underscores the need for efficiency and competency in legal proceedings, aiming to improve the administration of justice. This measure is intended to prevent delays and errors in court proceedings, thereby enhancing the quality of justice delivered. It reflects a judicial approach that values thoroughness and precision in legal processes, ensuring that legal professionals and law enforcement officers are equally equipped to handle the demands of their roles effectively.

In November 2022, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice PN Prakash, Justice RMT Teeka Raman, and Justice Chandira, issued a significant ruling concerning the legal procedures for contesting actions under the Domestic Violence Act. The bench decided that any proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act must be challenged in the High Court exclusively under Article 227 of the Constitution, instead of under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

This landmark ruling came after the matter was escalated to the Full Bench following initial reviews, indicating the complexity and importance of the legal question involved. By directing that challenges to proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act be filed under Article 227, the court has emphasized the supremacy of constitutional provisions over procedural statutes in matters related to domestic violence. This decision aims to clarify the appropriate jurisdictional framework, thereby streamlining legal processes and ensuring that constitutional rights are the primary consideration in these serious cases.

In October 2022, Justice Chandira made a pivotal ruling in a case involving white-collar crime, underlining the serious implications of such offenses. The case involved the former CEO of the Surana Group of Companies, who was accused of defrauding various banks out of approximately Rs 10,000 crores. In his judgment, he denied bail to the accused, citing the premeditated nature of white-collar crimes which are often orchestrated by well-educated and influential individuals who understand the ramifications of their actions.

His observations emphasized that unlike spontaneous crimes, white-collar crimes involve deliberate planning and abuse of power and trust. This type of crime has a profound and detrimental impact on society, affecting not just the immediate victims but also the economic and social fabric. His ruling reflects the judiciary's firm stance on the severity of white-collar crimes and highlights the necessity of holding powerful and influential individuals accountable for their actions. This judgment sends a strong message about the commitment of the courts to uphold justice and integrity, particularly in cases involving complex financial deceit.

In 2023, Justice Chandira made a notable ruling regarding the democratic rights of individuals, even under restrictive conditions such as a lockdown. The court quashed the criminal proceedings against Tamil Nadu Minister of Electricity, V. Senthil Balaji, and other members of the DMK party. These proceedings were initiated due to their participation in protests against the Farm Laws during the Covid-19 lockdown in 2020.

The decision followed a petition filed by Minister Balaji and four others seeking to quash the chargesheet against them. They argued that their actions were within the bounds of their legal right to protest. In his judgment, Justice Chandira highlighted the necessity of maintaining a balance between public health and the fundamental democratic right to freedom of expression. His ruling emphasized that even during emergency conditions, such as a public health crisis, it is crucial to uphold democratic rights. This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in protecting civil liberties while considering the broader context of public safety and order.

In a creative legal decision aimed at both punishing and educating about the dangers of drunk driving, Justice Chandira prescribed a distinctive bail condition. The court granted bail to a man named Deepan, accused of drunken driving, under the condition that he must actively participate in raising public awareness about the issue. Specifically, Deepan is required to distribute pamphlets against drunk driving every morning and evening for a period of two weeks.

Furthermore, to ensure compliance with the court's directive, Deepan is obligated to report daily to the respondent police station at 9:00 AM. This innovative approach by Justice Chandira reflects a dual intent: to penalize the offender while simultaneously using the opportunity to rehabilitate and educate him and the community about the risks associated with drunk driving. This method underscores the court’s commitment to using legal measures not only as a means of punishment but also as tools for social change and preventive action.

Justice Chandra made a notable ruling that reflects a shift towards a more reformative approach in handling cases involving juvenile offenders. He overturned a detention order issued by the Juvenile Justice Board in Thiruvallur against a 15-year-old child in conflict with the law, criticizing the board's decision as hasty and lacking in thorough assessment of the case's merits.

In his decision, Justice Chandra highlighted that juvenile offenders are often more victims of adverse societal conditions than perpetrators by choice. He argued that legal responses should consider the circumstances surrounding each case and not just the nature of the offense. Justice Chandra emphasized that the aim should be to rehabilitate and reintegrate young offenders into society, rather than merely punishing them. This ruling not only addressed the immediate case at hand but also set a significant precedent for the treatment of juvenile delinquents, advocating for a system that sees potential for reform and successful societal integration.

Justice Chandra’s decision underscores his commitment to the principles of the Juvenile Justice Act, which prioritizes nurturing and rehabilitating young lives over punitive measures. This approach is instrumental in fostering a justice system that supports the development and correction of youth in conflict with the law.