Madras High Court Monthly Digest
NOMINAL INDEX
S. Aslam v. The Director, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Youth Growth, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
Puducherry Physique Builders & Health Affiliation v. The Authorities of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
Play Video games 24×7 Non-public Restricted And Anr Vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors & Linked Issues, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
Paraman vs. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
V Gopi v The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
MA v Superintendent of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
V Balakrishnan v. The Basic Supervisor (T) and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
Okay Kannan v. The Managing Director and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
S. Sai Priya and others v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
Lyca Productions Non-public Restricted v Vishal Krishna Reddy, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The Director, CBI, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
V Easwaran v. Authorities of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
G Devarajan V The Particular Tahsildar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
Karthik Parthiban v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
H Santhosh v The District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
Anshul Mishra IAS v R Lalithambal and one other, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
The Tahsildar v. T Elumalai, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
Google India Pvt Ltd and One other v. Testbook Edu Options Non-public Restricted and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
Jaganmoorthy v Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
Muruganandam and One other v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
Vetri Maaran v. The Chairman, CBFC and One other, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
R Jim v. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
Madurai Multi Practical Complicated Non-public Restricted v. the Madurai Company, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
The Government Secretary of District and Others v. Okay.S Subha Karuthukhan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
Akash Baskaran v. The Joint Director, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
Sakthivel Ganesan v. Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
J Revathy v The Authorities of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
M Arasupandi v. The Commissioner of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
Pastor L.Joseph Wilson v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
Karuppan v. The District Justice of the Peace-cum-District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
M. Kannan @ Solai Kannan v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
D Babu Rajendra Bose and One other v. The Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
P Karthikeyan v. The Basic Supervisor and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
Tamil Movie Lively Producers Affiliation (TFAPA) v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
The Principal Accountant Basic (A&E) v. A.V Jerald and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
M/s. Sharma Centre for Heritage Schooling and One other v. The Director, FRCA Wing, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
M. Jaganmoorthy v. Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
Dr. E. Krithikaa v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
XXX v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
REPORTS
Case Title: S. Aslam v. The Director, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Youth Growth
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has stayed the rustication of a 2nd yr MSW pupil for allegedly portray “Jai Bhim and Free Palestine” graffiti within the hostel wall of Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Youth growth.
Justice TV Tamilselvi stayed the rustication contemplating that the scholar was on the fag finish of his profession and if he was not permitted to attend exams and internship, it will trigger him an excessive amount of hardship. The court docket subsequently directed the faculty to reschedule his examination, subject corridor ticket and allow him to attend the block placement programme in social service division.
Case Title: Puducherry Physique Builders & Health Affiliation v. The Authorities of India
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has lately noticed that conferring pageant titles comparable to “Mr. India”, wouldn’t be violative of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy mentioned that conferring such title to the winner of a physique constructing competitors wouldn’t in any method imply that it’s a use of the nationwide emblem or the title of the nation for commerce, enterprise and many others and is merely used to check with the title winner. Noting that the sport is just aimed toward encouraging bodily well being, the court docket discovered no violation of the regulation.
Madras High Court Upholds Night Ban, Mandatory KYC For Online Real Money Games
Case title: Play Video games 24×7 Non-public Restricted And Anr Vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors & Linked Issues
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
The Madras Excessive Courtroom on Tuesday upheld the rules introduced in by the Tamil Nadu authorities imposing an evening ban and mandating Aadhar-based KYC verification for taking part in on-line actual cash video games.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Okay Rajasekar dismissed the petitions filed by a bunch of on-line gaming corporations and gamers. The bench mentioned that other than a paternalistic level, the State had gone one step additional to guard the well being and well-being of its residents, which was an inexpensive restriction.
Although the businesses had argued on the side of Proper to privateness, the court docket has rejected the arguments and mentioned that the Proper to privateness comes with it its personal restriction.
Case title: Paraman vs. State
Quotation : 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
In a rare ruling, the Madras Excessive Courtroom lately upheld the conviction of a person discovered responsible of raping a lady below coercion, whereas directing the jail authorities to extract labour from the appellant-convict throughout his jail time period.
The Courtroom additional ordered that the wages earned by him be equally distributed between the kid born by means of the sufferer (rape survivor) and one other little one born by means of his spouse.
In its order, a bench of Justice KK Ramakrishnan noticed that the Courtroom was compelled to grant this extraordinary aid “with a heavy coronary heart,” in an try and “wipe out the tears” of the sufferer and the harmless kids affected by the crime.
Chennai Honour Killing Case: Madras High Court Rejects Plea For CBI Probe
Case Title: V Gopi v The State and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has dismissed a plea searching for CBI probe into the alleged honour killing of a person in Chennai in 2024.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea filed by V Gopi, father of the deceased Praveen. The court docket thus refused to switch the pending investigation to the CBI.
Praveen was allegedly killed by his spouse’s relations who have been sad with the wedding. Praveen belonged to the Scheduled Caste (SC) Adi Dravidar neighborhood whereas his spouse belonged to the Most Backward Class (MBC) neighborhood.
Gopi contended that on February 24, 2024, his son was forcefully taken to a parking zone in Pallikaranai the place the accused got here with lethal weapons, assaulted and slaughtered Praveen who subsequently died. In his plea for CBI probe, Gopi submitted that the woman’s household had conspired to homicide his son with the assistance of his associates and kin. It was submitted that the woman’s father was a functionary of the ruling DMK social gathering and was engaged in political and different communal actions.
Case Title: MA v Superintendent of Police
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
The Madras Excessive Courtroom lately noticed that the idea of “household” has to be understood expansively and marriage is just not the only mode to begin a household.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan noticed that whereas the judgment of the Supreme Courtroom in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs Union of India may not have legalised identical intercourse marriage, such {couples} might very nicely kind a household.
The bench additionally expressed discomfort in associating the phrase “queer” with gay individuals. The court docket mentioned that the sexual orientation of a gay particular person have to be completely regular for him/her/them and questioned why it ought to be related to the phrase “queer” which, by definition, meant “unusual or odd”.
NHAI Can’t Collect Toll From Users Without Maintaining Highway Properly: Madras High Court
Case Title: V Balakrishnan v. The Basic Supervisor (T) and others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
In a solace for highway customers, the Madras Excessive Courtroom has underscored that the Nationwide Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has an obligation to take care of highways correctly pursuant to which they’ll gather toll price on such customers.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete thus halted the gathering of toll within the Madurai-Tuticorin freeway, until the roads are correctly maintained by the authority as per the requirements prescribed below the Nationwide Highways Authority of India Act.
Case Title: Okay Kannan v. The Managing Director and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
Ordering the closure of a TASMAC store located on a public highway, the Madras Excessive Courtroom lately noticed {that a} welfare authorities ought to attempt to implement prohibition somewhat than establishing extra TASMAC outlets, which impacts the general public well being.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete added that it was contradictory for a welfare state to set up extra hospitals on the one hand and concurrently set up TASMAC outlets on the opposite. The court docket additionally added that when proper to well being was a elementary proper, the State ought to make sure that prohibition is applied slowly to scale back the hurt to public well being.
Case Title: S. Sai Priya and others v. Union of India
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has dismissed a petition crammed by college students searching for re-examination of NEET UG examinations
Justice C Kumarappan dismissed the petition after paying attention to the report filed by the Nationwide Testing Company. The court docket added that until malafide was proven in NTA’s report, permitting a plea for re-examination would have an effect on the extent enjoying area of round 2 million college students who wrote the examination throughout India.
The court docket thought of the report filed by NTA after a area verification carried out by the Centre Superintendent, Metropolis Coordinator, NTA-appointed Observers and Invigilators on responsibility within the examination halls.
Discovering no malafide within the report, the court docket rejected the plea for re-examination and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Lyca Productions Non-public Restricted v Vishal Krishna Reddy
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has directed Actor Vishal to pay Rs. 30 Crore due to leisure firm Lyca Productions.
Decreeing a swimsuit filed by Lyca, Justice PT Asha additionally remarked that Vishal’s conduct had been evasive from the start of the swimsuit. Thus, the court docket famous that it was a case the place price may very well be imposed on Vishal.
Case Title: A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The Director, CBI
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has disposed the plea filed by Youtuber Savukku Shankar searching for a CBI probe into the alleged misappropriation of funds in reference to the implementation of the Annal Ambedkar Scheme. Although the court docket has refused to order a CBI probe, the court docket has directed the authorities to recheck the record of tender awardees and make sure that solely those that fulfill the factors have been awarded contracts below the scheme.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan reserved the plea for orders throughout trip court docket in Could after paying attention to an endeavor given by the President of the Dalit Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industries (DICCI) assuring the court docket that every one the beneficiaries recognized below the scheme will be made a part of Gen Inexperienced Logistics, thus making certain that they get shares and advantages below the Scheme.
The court docket has directed the authorities to confirm the record following the rules of pure justice and delete individuals who don’t fulfill the requisite standards. The court docket added that the end result of the train have to be knowledgeable to Shankar, who had alleged that even advocates had been made beneficiaries below the scheme.
Case Title: V Easwaran v. Authorities of Tamil Nadu
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
Observing that the funds payable by the Central Authorities to the States below the Proper to Schooling Act needn’t be linked to the implementation of the Nationwide Schooling Coverage (NEP), the Madras Excessive Courtroom urged the Centre to contemplate releasing the Samagra Shiksha Scheme funds payable to the Tamil Nadu authorities.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan was disposing of a petition searching for instructions to the State to provoke the admission course of below the Proper to Schooling Act, 2009 for the educational yr 2025-2026 instantly. The bench had reserved the orders within the petition throughout its trip sitting.
The court docket additionally famous that because the State Authorities has filed a suit in the Supreme Court in opposition to the withholding of funds, it couldn’t subject any binding instructions. The court docket thus urged the central authorities to contemplate delinking the RTE element.
Case Title: G Devarajan V The Particular Tahsildar and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has requested the committee, constituted by the Authorities, to provoke motion in opposition to theatre homeowners who overprice the tickets for patrons. The court docket has additionally requested the committee to make sure that the surplus quantity collected by the theatres are refunded to the shoppers.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noticed that when the federal government itself had mounted charges, which was being revised occasionally, the theatre homeowners couldn’t fleece the movie-goers by charging extra quantity from them.
Contemplating the submission made by the state and noting that the committee has been caring for extra price assortment, the court docket disposed the plea and requested the committee to behave in opposition to the theatre homeowners.
Case Title: Karthik Parthiban v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has lately noticed {that a} international nationwide can’t be pressured to remain in India indefinitely in reference to a felony case when he’s not even named as an accused within the case.
The court docket thus directed the investigating businesses to finish the probe in opposition to a Seychelles citizen inside a yr and to revoke the look out round issued in opposition to him, if no case was established.
Noting that the investigation can not stay pending indefinitely, the court docket directed the CBI to finish the investigation inside an yr and to revoke the look out round, if no case was established in opposition to the petitioner. The court docket added that if a case was established in opposition to the petitioner, he must face trial and thus there could be a justification in preserving the look out round pending.
Case Title: H Santhosh v The District Collector
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
The Madras Excessive Courtroom lately directed the Authorities to move crucial Authorities Orders empowering income authorities to subject a “No Caste No Faith: certificates.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar lauded the intent of a father to get a authorities certificates stating that he and household didn’t belong to any faith or caste. The court docket added that such an object would assist in prohibiting caste-based discrimination and could be an eye-opener for residents.
The court docket was listening to an attraction in opposition to a single decide order which had dismissed the daddy’s petition stating that income authorities have been not empowered to subject “no caste no faith certificates”. The division bench nonetheless noticed that the one decide was misguided with the objections put forth by the Authorities Pleader and had not thought of the item of Article 25 of the Structure. The court docket added that as per Article 25, the state had a constitutional obligation to implement the item of Article 25 and acknowledge the liberty of conscience of a person to decide on their very own spiritual beliefs.
Madras High Court Suspends One-Month Imprisonment Imposed On IAS Officer In Contempt Case
Case Title: Anshul Mishra IAS v R Lalithambal and one other
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has suspended the sentence of one-month imprisonment imposed on IAS officer Anshul Mishra for “civil contempt” by failing to comply with an earlier order of the court docket in a land case.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan suspended the sentence imposed by the decide. The court docket was listening to an attraction most well-liked by the IAS officer searching for to put aside the order of the one decide.
On April 28, Justice P Velmurugan had discovered the IAS officer responsible of the offence below Part 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced him. The decide had requested the officer to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the petitioners (an aged duo) from his private wage and directed the Authorities to deduct the compensation from his wage. The sentence was suspended, permitting the officer to go for attraction.
Case Title: The Tahsildar v. T Elumalai
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has clarified that no particular person can declare possession of a grama natham land (village home websites) by occupation and such lands have been meant to be allotted to the landless poor or used for public function.
In doing so, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Okay Rajasekar took a view totally different from that taken by a single judge holding that when an occupation of natham land is accepted by the State, it will grow to be non-public property and there could be no encroachment.
The bench noticed that if title on the natham land was to be conferred on mere occupation of an individual, some grasping people would alone occupy the lands illegally for his or her unjust features. The court docket emphasised that natham lands have been meant for dwelling and ought to be allotted to the poor or used for public function.
Case Title: Google India Pvt Ltd and One other v. Testbook Edu Options Non-public Restricted and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has dismissed an software filed by Google India Non-public Restricted and Google India Digital Providers Non-public Restricted to reject a plaint filed by Testbook Edu Options Non-public Restricted difficult Google’s new billing coverage.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy famous that Testbook’s plaint was totally different from the sooner plaints filed by different startups on the identical subject, which have been rejected by the Excessive Courtroom. The court docket famous that the arguments raised by Testbook weren’t simply associated to the superior bargaining place of Google but additionally with respect to the bilateral contracts between the events.
The court docket thus famous that such in personam disputes couldn’t be adjudicated by the Competitors Fee of India, which was empowered solely to look at whether or not an enterprise had abused its dominant place and never whether or not the contract was violative.
Case Title: Jaganmoorthy v Inspector of Police
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has ordered the Tamil Nadu police to arrest Further Director Basic of Police HM Jayaram to analyze his alleged involvement in an abduction case. The decide has additionally requested KV Kuppam MLA “Poovai” Jagan Moorthy to cooperate with the investigating authorities.
Justice P Velmurugan directed the police to take motion in opposition to the ADGP as per regulation. The court docket added that being a public servant, Jayaram was answerable to the general public. The decide added {that a} robust message ought to exit to the general public that nobody was above regulation.
Case Title: Muruganandam and One other v. State
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
The Madras Excessive Courtroom lately criticised the Tamil Nadu police for attempting to suppress dissent by registering felony circumstances in opposition to people who have been peacefully protesting in opposition to points that affected public well being and social welfare.
The court docket thus quashed felony proceedings in opposition to people who had participated in protests in opposition to the functioning of a TASMAC outlet in a populated space.
Justice P Velmurugan additionally remarked that if felony circumstances have been registered in opposition to each citizen who participates in peaceable protests, it would quantity to criminalisation of democratic expression. The court docket thus added that the case confirmed how the felony justice system was being wrongly used in opposition to individuals who have been working for the welfare of the neighborhood.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
Whereas granting divorce to a husband, the Madras Excessive Courtroom lately noticed that making unsubstantiated sexual allegations in opposition to husband and father-in-law quantities to defamation which in flip constitutes psychological cruelty.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Sakthivel held as below,
“As elaborated above, the unestablished sexual allegations made by the respondent in opposition to the petitioner and his father, quantities to cruelty and thus, the petitioner has made out a case below Part 13 (1) (i-a) of H.M. Act. Factors for consideration arising in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are answered accordingly. The petitioner is thus entitled to a Decree of divorce,” the court docket mentioned.
The court docket thus famous that although the spouse was keen to renew the marital life, contemplating the psychological cruelty that was inflicted by her upon the husband, the husband’s unwillingness to reunite was justified. Noting that the events couldn’t attain a consensus even throughout mediation, the court docket was inclined to permit the husband’s attraction and dissolve the wedding.
Case Title: Vetri Maaran v. The Chairman, CBFC and One other
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
The Madras Excessive Courtroom on Tuesday disposed of a plea filed by director Vetri Maaran difficult the CBFC’s refusal to certify the upcoming Tamil film “Manushi”, produced by Maaran, with out specifying the objectionable content material.
The CBFC knowledgeable Justice N Anand Venkatesh that as per the earlier order of the court docket, the reviewing board had watched the film once more and had supplied the main points of the parts/dialogues/scenes from the film, to which it had objections. The Board additionally knowledgeable the court docket that it was keen to contemplate certifying the film, whether it is submitted afresh, after eradicating the objectionable content material.
On the identical time, Advocate Subash, showing for Vetri Maaran, knowledgeable the court docket that he had objections with respect to the objectionable parts of the movie, identified by the board. Since such objections couldn’t be gone into within the current plea, the court docket gave liberty to Maaran to problem the identical within the method recognized to regulation.
Case Title: R Jim v. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
The Madras Excessive Courtroom lately criticised the frequent boycott of courts by lawyer our bodies over “flimsy” grounds or primarily based on sure particular person grievances. The court docket mentioned that such follow should not be appreciated. The court docket noticed that in case of grievances, the legal professionals ought to method the Bar Council or competent authorities and never resort to a boycott unnecessarily.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete famous that the Supreme Courtroom has additionally deprecated frequent court docket boycott by legal professionals and had reiterated that the legal professionals ought to resolve their grievances by approaching competent authorities. The bench noticed that legal professionals have been stakeholders within the justice supply system and their absence would have an effect on court docket proceedings. The court docket additionally added that boycott by legal professionals was a priority to judiciary and in such circumstances, the court docket wouldn’t be able to eliminate the circumstances.
Case Title: Madurai Multi Practical Complicated Non-public Restricted v. the Madurai Company
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
The Madras Excessive Courtroom lately noticed that the property belonging to the Union might be exempt from any tax imposed by the State as per Article 285(1) of the Structure, even whether it is put to business use.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice M Jothiraman famous that Article 285 of the Structure didn’t specify the form of property that was exempt, and thus, the expression would must be understood in an absolute sense. The court docket thus noticed that property would imply any property, whether or not vacant or constructed or used for public curiosity or for business functions. The court docket thus highlighted that every one sorts of property belonging to the Union Authorities would take shelter inside the Article, which stood like an Iron dome.
Case Title: The Government Secretary of District and Others v. Okay.S Subha Karuthukhan
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
The Madras Excessive Courtroom lately noticed {that a} matrimonial dispute was handled as a misconduct below the Tamil Nadu Authorities Servants’ Conduct Guidelines, 1973, and the Authorities departments have been empowered to provoke motion such misconduct.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete famous {that a} public servant was anticipated to take care of honesty, integrity and good conduct not simply contained in the workplace however exterior as nicely. Thus, the bench held that even when a misconduct was dedicated in a matrimonial relationship, the division might provoke disciplinary proceedings.
Case Title: Akash Baskaran v. The Joint Director
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has stayed all proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate in opposition to movie producer Akash Bhaskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran. The court docket additionally directed ED to return all supplies seized from the petitioners.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayan held that the authorisation primarily based on which the ED had carried out searches on the workplaces and residences of the petitioners was prima facie with out jurisdiction since there was no incriminating materials in opposition to them. The court docket additionally noticed that the supplies produced by the ED had no semblance of any data primarily based on which the ED had determined to take motion in opposition to the petitioners.
Case Title: Sakthivel Ganesan v. Inspector of Police
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has knowledgeable the Director Basic of Police and the Commissioner of Police, Better Chennai that it’ll take stringent motion by the use of suo motu contempt proceedings in opposition to the police division whether it is discovered that the title of victims in sexual offence circumstances is revealed within the FIRs.
Justice P Velmurugan requested the DGP and the Commissioner to offer directions to all investigating officers that in case of sure offences, the id of the sufferer/little one shouldn’t be revealed as enunciated below regulation and thru the instructions of the Supreme Courtroom.
The court docket famous that as per the instructions of the Supreme Courtroom, the indemnity of victims of rape and sexual offences shouldn’t be revealed in any kind. The court docket nonetheless famous that some investigating officers weren’t following these instructions nor the regulation which prohibited the identical.
Wife Doesn’t Need Husband’s Permission To Apply For Passport: Madras High Court
Case Title: J Revathy v The Authorities of India and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that’s not crucial for a spouse to get her husband’s permission and his signature whereas making use of for a passport. The court docket added that such a follow doesn’t augur nicely for a society that’s transferring in direction of ladies’s emancipation and was a form of male supremacism.
Expressing shock on the authority’s insistence, Justice Anand Venkatesh noticed that insistence by the Passport Authorities confirmed the mindset of the society, which handled ladies like a chattel and as belonging to the husband after marriage. The court docket added that the girl doesn’t lose her individuality after marriage and might at all times apply for a passport with out the permission or signature of her husband.
Case Title: M Arasupandi v. The Commissioner of Police and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
The Madras Excessive Courtroom lately modified a situation imposed within the conduct of the Murugan Convention of Madurai, mandating that every one autos coming for the convention acquire a move to enter Madurai.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice Okay Rajasekar held that the Assistant Commissioner couldn’t have handed such a blanket prohibitory order because the officer didn’t have management over the whole metropolis. The court docket additionally famous that there was no robust purpose to intervene with the basic proper of the residents.
The court docket additional famous that within the current case, nothing had been proven by the officers in assist of the situations. The court docket added that the authorities had didn’t specify the issues anticipated by them for imposing the situations. The court docket additionally famous that in a republican democracy like ours, the benefit of participation in democratic gatherings is equally important.
Case Title: Pastor L.Joseph Wilson v. The District Collector and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has reiterated {that a} home can’t be transformed right into a prayer corridor with out crucial permission from the authorities.
Justice Anand Venkatesh was referring to T. Wilson v. District Collector, Kanyakumari Dist and Ors. (2021) the place a coordinate bench had held {that a} spiritual proper can’t be claimed to be absolute and prayer conferences attended by large crowds would require acquiring crucial permission below the related guidelines.
Within the current case, the bench additionally rejected an endeavor given by the petitioner saying that the home prayer might be carried out peacefully with out utilizing any loudspeakers. The court docket mentioned that mere non-usage of microphone and loudspeaker is not going to remedy the difficulty and what was wanted was correct permission from authorities.
Case Title: Karuppan v. The District Justice of the Peace-cum-District Collector and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
The Madras Excessive Courtroom lately held that solely an individual who has transferred the property with a selected situation for upkeep could be capable of file an software to cancel the settlement below Part 23(1) of the Upkeep and Welfare of Dad and mom and Senior Residents Act, 2007.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus quashed the order of the Sub-Collector cancelling the settlement deed executed by a father, on an software filed by the mom. The court docket famous that the mom couldn’t have filed the appliance to cancel the settlement of the property, which was settled by the daddy.
The Madras Excessive Courtroom lately held that solely an individual who has transferred the property with a selected situation for upkeep could be capable of file an software to cancel the settlement below Part 23(1) of the Upkeep and Welfare of Dad and mom and Senior Residents Act, 2007.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus quashed the order of the Sub-Collector cancelling the settlement deed executed by a father, on an software filed by the mom. The court docket famous that the mom couldn’t have filed the appliance to cancel the settlement of the property, which was settled by the daddy.
Case Title: M. Kannan @ Solai Kannan v. The District Collector and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has delivered a break up verdict on pleas difficult the efficiency of animal sacrifice on the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah located on the Thiruparakundram Hills, which additionally homes the temple Arulmighu Subramaniaswamy Thirukovil.
Whereas Justice Nisha Banu refused to intervene with the follow of animal sacrifice, Justice S Srimathy took a totally different view and mentioned that the Dargah ought to method the civil court docket to set up their proper to follow the Kandoori animal sacrifice and prayers throughout Ramzan, Bakrid and different Islamic festivals. The matter will now be positioned earlier than the Chief Justice for acceptable orders.
The Thiruparakundram Hills homes each the Kasivishwanathar temple and Sikkandar darga. The hill additionally consists of Jain temples. Not too long ago, the hill turned the attention of the storm, when an try was made to carry out animal sacrifice on the Dargah. The current petitions have been filed to stop the Dargah and its Jamaat members from finishing up animal sacrifice on the hill and from serving meals ready by animal sacrifice.
Case Title: D Babu Rajendra Bose and One other v. The Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commissioner and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has upheld an order of the State Human Rights Fee recommending compensation of ₹1,00,000 for police brutality meted out to a person in custody.
Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice M Jothiraman noticed that police officers have a essential function in sustaining regulation and order whereas upholding human rights. The court docket remarked that police officers should respect human dignity, keep away from discrimination, and shield weak teams. The court docket additionally highlighted that officers should adhere to human rights standing orders and should stop abuse.
Bank Appointment Can Be Cancelled Over Poor CIBIL Rating: Madras High Court Upholds SBI’s Decision
Case Title: P Karthikeyan v. The Basic Supervisor and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
The Madras Excessive Courtroom lately refused to intervene with an order handed by the State Financial institution of India cancelling the appointment of a person over an hostile credit score historical past in his CIBIL report.
Justice N Mala noticed that the banking enterprise required monetary self-discipline as the workers handled public cash. The court docket added that an individual with poor monetary self-discipline couldn’t be trusted with dealing with public cash and thus the financial institution was proper in holding that individuals with hostile CIBIL have been ineligible for appointment.
The court docket famous that, as per the eligibility standards, it was crystal clear that sustaining a transparent document of reimbursement of loans with none default was the requirement. Perusing the CIBIL report submitted by the Financial institution, the court docket famous that there have been 9 irregular credit score amenities and greater than 10 credit score enquiries in opposition to the petitioner. The court docket additionally famous that the petitioner had additionally admitted to defaulting the reimbursement of loans. The court docket additionally rejected the argument of discrimination and famous that solely these candidates who’ve fulfilled the mandatory standards got appointment.
Case Title: Tamil Movie Lively Producers Affiliation (TFAPA) v Union of India and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has dismissed a plea filed by the Tamil Movie Lively Producers Affiliation (TFAPA) searching for to stop on-line opinions of motion pictures inside the first three days of launch.
Justice Anand Venkatesh dismissed the plea, stating that such a aid was unsustainable and couldn’t be granted by the courts. The court docket noticed that such a aid, if granted, would quantity to curbing the elementary proper to speech and expression of the residents.
The court docket additionally identified that on this age of social media, it was not attainable to stop an individual from posting opinions. It was additionally noticed that such a evaluate of the movie’s high quality was a part of the basic proper of freedom of speech and expression. Saying that the producers couldn’t anticipate solely optimistic opinions, the court docket highlighted that even judges have been typically criticised on social media.
Case Title: The Principal Accountant Basic (A&E) v. A.V Jerald and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has pressured that pension is a matter of proper and not charity and the authorities ought to exhibit alacrity whereas disbursing pension for the advantage of mentally disabled individuals.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice Okay Rajasekar noticed that pension ought to be seen as a aspect of Article 21 of the Structure, and energy have to be taken to effectuate the benevolent object of the statutory guidelines.
The court docket thus noticed that pensions to sons/daughters of presidency servants, who have been mentally disabled and fell inside the scope of pension guidelines have to be disbursed on submission of medical certificates with out insisting on the revenue certificates. The court docket additionally added that the order sanctioning the pension have to be handed with none delays.
NGOs Shouldn’t Be Looked At With Suspicion Just Because They Receive Foreign Aid: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s. Sharma Centre for Heritage Schooling and One other v. The Director, FRCA Wing
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has held that merely as a result of an NGO was operating with the help of international contribution, it shouldn’t be checked out with suspicion until there’s materials to point out that the international contribution has been misused.
Justice Anand Venkatesh held that until there was a critical violation of the international funds, the authorities ought to have an open thoughts whereas coping with the establishments.
The court docket held that Part 7, because it stood earlier than modification, allowed switch of international contribution to different one who was additionally registered below the Act. Nevertheless, after the modification in 2020, even such a switch to a registered particular person needed to be with the prior permission of the competent authority. The court docket thus opined that even when the authorities have been of the opinion that there was a violation, they need to have referred to as for clarification from the petitioners and knowledgeable them in regards to the modification.
The court docket additionally highlighted that within the current case, there was no materials to point out that the international contribution was misused. The court docket held that simply because a procedural formality was not adopted, it shouldn’t be put in opposition to the belief and reject renewal, which might in the end lead to closing the establishments.
Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To MLA Poovai Jaganmoorthy In Alleged Abduction Case
Case Title: M. Jaganmoorthy v. Inspector of Police
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by the KV Kuppam MLA “Poovai” Jagan Moorthy in connection with the alleged abduction of a minor boy.
Justice G Jayachandran dismissed the bail plea filed by the MLA, noting that there was “prima facie” materials to proceed in opposition to him.
The MLA had approached the court docket apprehending arrest in reference to an abduction case registered by the Thiruvallur Police Station primarily based on a criticism by one Lakshmi. Lakshmi had alleged that her elder son had married a woman with out the consent of the woman’s household. Thereafter, the woman’s household, with some miscreants, entered their home in the hunt for her elder son. Because the elder son and his spouse went into hiding, the miscreants kidnapped her youthful son, aged 18.
Case Title: Dr.E.Krithikaa v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
The Madras Excessive Courtroom has dominated that maternity depart availed by a physician whereas rendering necessary service at Authorities Hospital ought to be counted in direction of their bond interval.
The bench of GR Swaminathan and Justice Okay Rajasekar famous that maternity depart is integral to maternity profit and kinds a part of Article 21. The court docket thus held that the physician, although was not within the service of the authorities as an everyday worker, could be entitled to the identical therapy as any authorities worker.
Case Title: XXX v. The Inspector of Police
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Madras Excessive Courtroom lately ordered a re-investigation in a POCSO case after noting that the police had didn’t conduct additional investigation when the DNA take a look at of the accused gave a destructive consequence. The court docket mentioned {that a} additional investigation was essential to search out the precise wrongdoer within the case.
Justice Okay Murali Shankar mentioned that POCSO offences are critical in nature stressing that it was excessive time for the prosecution to make sure a correct investigation.
