June 23 to June 29, 2025
NOMINAL INDEX
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 Normal 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 Normal (A&E) v. A.V Jerald and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
M/s. Sharma Centre for Heritage Training and One other v. The Director, FRCA Wing, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
M. Jaganmoorthy v. Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
REPORT
Case Title: Pastor L.Joseph Wilson v. The District Collector and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
The Madras Excessive Court docket has reiterated {that a} home can’t be transformed right into a prayer corridor with out obligatory 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 obligatory permission underneath the related guidelines.
Within the current case, the bench additionally rejected an enterprise given by the petitioner saying that the home prayer will likely be performed peacefully with out utilizing any loudspeakers. The court docket mentioned that mere non-usage of microphone and loudspeaker won’t clear up 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 Court docket not too long ago held that solely an individual who has transferred the property with a selected situation for upkeep would be capable of file an software to cancel the settlement underneath 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 Court docket not too long ago held that solely an individual who has transferred the property with a selected situation for upkeep would be capable of file an software to cancel the settlement underneath 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 Court docket 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 intrude with the apply of animal sacrifice, Justice S Srimathy took a distinct view and mentioned that the Dargah ought to strategy the civil court docket to determine their proper to apply 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 applicable orders.
The Thiruparakundram Hills homes each the Kasivishwanathar temple and Sikkandar darga. The hill additionally consists of Jain temples. Lately, the hill grew to become the eye of the storm, when an try was made to carry out animal sacrifice on the Dargah. The current petitions had 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 Court docket 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 vital 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 forestall abuse.
Bank Appointment Can Be Cancelled Over Poor CIBIL Rating: Madras High Court Upholds SBI’s Decision
Case Title: P Karthikeyan v. The Normal Supervisor and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
The Madras Excessive Court docket not too long ago refused to intrude with an order handed by the State Financial institution of India cancelling the appointment of a person over an antagonistic 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 antagonistic CIBIL had been ineligible for appointment.
The court docket famous that, as per the eligibility standards, it was crystal clear that sustaining a transparent file 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 services and greater than 10 credit score enquiries towards 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 required standards had been given appointment.
Case Title: Tamil Movie Lively Producers Affiliation (TFAPA) v Union of India and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
The Madras Excessive Court docket has dismissed a plea filed by the Tamil Movie Lively Producers Affiliation (TFAPA) searching for to stop on-line critiques of motion pictures throughout the first three days of launch.
Justice Anand Venkatesh dismissed the plea, stating that such a reduction was unsustainable and couldn’t be granted by the courts. The court docket noticed that such a reduction, if granted, would quantity to curbing the basic proper to speech and expression of the residents.
The court docket additionally identified that on this age of social media, it was not doable to stop an individual from posting critiques. It was additionally noticed that such a overview of the movie’s high quality was a part of the elemental proper of freedom of speech and expression. Saying that the producers couldn’t anticipate solely optimistic critiques, the court docket highlighted that even judges had been typically criticised on social media.
Case Title: The Principal Accountant Normal (A&E) v. A.V Jerald and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
The Madras Excessive Court docket has careworn that pension is a matter of proper and never 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 side of Article 21 of the Structure, and energy should 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 had been mentally disabled and fell throughout the scope of pension guidelines should be disbursed on submission of medical certificates with out insisting on the earnings certificates. The court docket additionally added that the order sanctioning the pension should 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 Training and One other v. The Director, FRCA Wing
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
The Madras Excessive Court docket has held that merely as a result of an NGO was working with the help of international contribution, it mustn’t be checked out with suspicion except there may be materials to indicate that the international contribution has been misused.
Justice Anand Venkatesh held that except there was a severe 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 underneath the Act. Nevertheless, after the modification in 2020, even such a switch to a registered individual needed to be with the prior permission of the competent authority. The court docket thus opined that even when the authorities had been of the opinion that there was a violation, they need to have known 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 indicate that the international contribution was misused. The court docket held that simply because a procedural formality was not adopted, it shouldn’t be put towards the belief and reject renewal, which might in the end end in 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 Court docket has dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by the KV Kuppam MLA “Poovai” Jagan Moorthy in reference to 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 towards him.
The MLA had approached the court docket apprehending arrest in reference to an abduction case registered by the Thiruvallur Police Station based mostly on a grievance by one Lakshmi. Lakshmi had alleged that her elder son had married a lady with out the consent of the lady’s household. Thereafter, the lady’s household, with some miscreants, entered their home in quest of her elder son. Because the elder son and his spouse went into hiding, the miscreants kidnapped her youthful son, aged 18.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: S Vinoth Raghavendran v. Ms. P. Amudha and Others
Case No: Cont P 519 of 2025
The Madras Excessive Court docket has issued notices on a contempt plea concerning encroachment of temple land.
The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Sunder Mohan issued notices to Ms P. Amudha IAS (Secretary to Authorities – Division of Income and Catastrophe Administration), Ms S. Madhumathi IAS (Secretary to Authorities – Division of Faculty Training), Dr. B. Chandramohan IAS (Secretary to Authorities – Division of Tourism, Tradition and HR & CE Division), Mr PN Sridhar IAS (Commissioner, Hindu Non secular and Charitable Endowment Administration Division), Ms. Sibi Adithiya Senthilkumar IAS (District Collector, Cuddalore) and two joint commissioners of HR & CE Division.
The notices had been issued in a contempt plea filed by S. Vinoth Ragavendran towards the non-compliance of an earlier order of the court docket in April 2024 by which the court docket had directed the State to search out alternate land for a faculty that was allegedly performing on a temple land.
Case Title: M Jaganmoorthy v. The Inspector of Police
Case No: Crl OP 17521 of 2025
Whereas opposing the pre-arrest bail of MLA Poovai Jaganmoorthy in reference to an abduction case, the Tamil Nadu authorities on Friday (June 27) advised the Madras Excessive Court docket that it wished to decriminalise politics within the State.
Making submissions earlier than Justice G Jayachandran, Extra Advocate Normal J Ravindran mentioned that the current case ought to develop into a guiding mild for all future circumstances involving legislators. Ravindran additionally alleged that the MLA was the mind behind your entire episode. He identified that there have been contradictions within the MLA’s statements, which might present his lively involvement within the case.
“Now we’re going for decriminalising in politics. So, this could not be handled as a daily anticipatory bail petition. This order ought to be a guiding issue for all such circumstances, together with legislators sooner or later,” Ravindran mentioned.
