Madras High Court Monthly Digest: July 2025

NOMINAL INDEX
ML Ravi v. Director General of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
P Kishore v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
M/s. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
M/s Media Monks Multimedia v. Pachala Murali Krishna, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
S. Sai Priya and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. The Commissioner of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
Abimani v. Government of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
The State of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. Aro Granite Industries Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
M/s.Axeon Marketing India v. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group 2) and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
Krishna @ Krishnakumar v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
M/s.Madurai – Kanyakumari Tollway Private Limited and others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
P Vikash Kumar v. A Mohandass, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
K.J. Vinod (Insolvency Professional) v. Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Kayar Nisha and Another v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
J Eswaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
ICICI Securities Limited versus Kariabettan Sugumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
Malar Selvi v. The Director DVAC, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
Dr.A.K.Boominathan v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
Venkatesan v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
Prakash Ramachandran v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
R.K.M Powergen Private Limited v. The Assistant Director and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
High Court of Madras v. Siva Das Meena IAS and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
M/s. Eminent Textiles Mills Private Limited v. The State Tax Officer & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
P. Sakkarai vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
R Ramkumar and Others v. The Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
P. Ganga Parameshwaran vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
Palai Rafi @ Mohamed Rafi v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
T Prabhakar v. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
Vanaraj and Others v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
Muniraj v The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The Commissioner, GCC and Others v. S Jaya and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
CJ Christopher Signi v State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
S. H. Zarina Begum v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
M Pravin v. The Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
Harinaa v. The Regional Passport Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
C. Ve Shanmugam v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
REPORTS
Case Title: ML Ravi v. Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (July 1) dismissed a plea seeking to interrogate BJP leader Annamalai in connection with the evidence allegedly in his possession with respect to the Anna University sexual assault case.
In a recent interview, Annamalai had claimed that he had materials connecting higher officials with the Anna University Case. He said that he knew who the accused had referred to as “Sir” at the time of the offence.
Dismissing the petition filed by Advocate ML Ravi, Justice P Velmurugan said that politicians would keep on making such comments on a mic and the Courts should not waste its time on such matters.
Case Title: P Kishore v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
The Madras High Court has held that an individual’s phone cannot be tapped in a secret operation to detect the commission of a crime, and the same would violate the individual’s fundamental right to privacy.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that phone tapping would be justified only on two conditions: the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interest of public safety. The court also highlighted that these situations/ contingencies should be apparent to a reasonable man.
The court also added that orders allowing phone tapping should specify the necessity of the same in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign nations, public order, and for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence.
Case Title: M/s. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
The Madras High Court stated that customs department bound by DGFT’s classification of capital goods under EPCG scheme (export promotion capital goods scheme).
The Division Bench consists of Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar observed that “there is no justification in the Department having made the assessee litigate the issue needlessly despite the CBEC having categorically confirmed as early as in 2002 that the Customs Department must align with the stand of the DGFT and DG (Tourism) in matters of imports by hotels. The licence where the imports have been classified as ‘capital goods’ has not been revoked or withdrawn and it is nobody’s case that the licence has been obtained on a wrongful or fraudulent basis.”
Madras High Court Upholds Global Prior Use In MediaMonks Trademark Dispute
Case Title: M/s Media Monks Multimedia v. Pachala Murali Krishna
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
The Madras High Court has allowed a rectification petition for removal of trademark filed with the name “MEDIA MONK LABEL” and “MEDIA MONK” registered and being used by the respondent. The petition was filed by an international digital advertising company of the same name. The single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, allowing the petition, held that the party that uses the mark on a global scale, even if not used in India, shall be identified as the prior user.
Case Title: S. Sai Priya and Others v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
The Madras High Court has rejected the appeal preferred against a single bench decision refusing to order re-examination of NEET UG 2025, over issue of power outage at some exam centres in Chennai.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice M Jothiraman dismissed the appeal filed by a group of students, claiming that their performance was hindered due to the heavy rainfall and poor management by the center.
The court perused the order of the National Testing Agency, which was passed after conducting a field verification of the exam centres. The court said it has to uphold the integrity of the educational assessments in conducting examinations and it could not sit in appeal over the decision of the NTA, unless it was manifestly arbitrary, especially since a re-examination would affect more than 2 million other students.
Thus, the court observed that there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the single judge and, dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. The Commissioner of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
The Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed by actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party to hold a protest over the custodial death of one Ajith Kumar in Sivaganga District. The court asked the party to submit a fresh representation to the state police seeking permission for the protest. The party had initially planned to conduct the protest on July 6th (Sunday).
Justice P Velmurugan said that the party should give adequate time to the State to consider its representation. The court made the comment, noting that the representation for permission was made by the party on July 1, and the party had approached the court on July 4th. The court orally remarked that the police have a lot of other work and could not be expected to deal only with the party’s representation.
“Why are you in so much hurry? The police have a lot of other work. They can’t be expected to only deal with your work. You should at least give them 15 days to decide on the representation,” the judge orally remarked.
The judge then asked the party to submit a fresh representation with a new date for conducting the protest and asked the police to decide on the new representation.
Case Title: Abimani v. Government of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed seeking a direction to the Ministry of External Affairs to consider the issue of demanding a definite reformation of the United Nations Organisation (UNO).
A bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete termed the petition and the relief sought therein as ‘misconceived’ which fell “beyond the realm of the jurisdiction of the high court”.
Essentially, the plea filed by one Abimani sought issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Ministry of External Affairs to consider the issue of demanding a ‘definite reformation’ of the United Nations Organisation (UNO) to get the ‘respective due place’ for India and ‘stable world peace’.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. Aro Granite Industries Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court has stated that the assessing authority is not bound by the appellate tribunal’s observations in a De Novo assessment.
Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar opined that while concluding the assessment de novo, the assessing authority is not bound by the observations made by the first appellate authority.
Case Title: M/s.Axeon Marketing India v. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group 2) and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
The Madras High Court has recently observed that the laws relating to the import of drugs would also apply to ayurvedic drugs. Highlighting the absence of proper application forms for the import license of ayurvedic drugs, the court suggested that the existing rules should be modified to prescribe standards.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that there was a strong public element involved in the import of drugs, and it was necessary to regulate non-allopathic medicines also, which could have heavy metal content. Thus, the court stressed the need to modify the existing statutes. It added that the Parliament could, in the alternative, prohibit the import of ayurvedic or other classes of drugs if necessary.
Madras High Court Grants Bail To Actors Krishna & Srikanth Booked For Consuming Drugs
Case Title: Krishna @ Krishnakumar v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
The Madras High Court has granted bail to actors Krishna and Srikanth, who have been arrested in connection with offences under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar noted that the actors had purchased cocaine only for their personal use, which would attract Section 27 (Punishment for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance) of NDPS Act. Since the offence under Section 27 was a bailable one, the court was inclined to grant bail.
Case Title: M/s.Madurai – Kanyakumari Tollway Private Limited and others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
The Madras High Court has restrained the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation from passing its buses through four toll plazas on the National Highway in Tamil Nadu over unpaid toll arrears.
While taking the extreme step, Justice Anand Venkatesh added that the court was aware of the consequences of such an order but it was necessary to “jolt” the officials, who would otherwise not take any effort to settle the dispute. The court added that the if the payments are kept on being delayed, it would escalate to astronomical proportions.
Apprehending the law and order problem that would arise as a result of the direction, the court also directed the Director General of Police to issue necessary instruction to the concerned jurisdictional police to prove sufficient police protection at the toll plazas. The court asked the police to ensure that no undue pressure is exerted on the Toll Plazas to permit the buses to ply through.
Case Title: P Vikash Kumar v. A Mohandass
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
The Madras High Court has sentenced an advocate to 4 months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000 for disobeying and violating its orders.
Justice N Satish Kumar noted that a fine alone would not meet the ends of justice and thus decided to sentence the lawyer to 4 months’ imprisonment. The court thus directed the Registry to issue a necessary warrant and directed the lawyer to be detained in civil prison. Noting that the lawyer had also failed to appear before the court in the previous hearing, the court was not inclined to suspend the sentence.
The court passed the order on a contempt petition filed by one Vikash Kumar, highlighting that the lawyer, Advocate A Mohandass, had breached an undertaking given by him before the court to vacate the premises that he had been encroaching upon.
NCLT Is Bound To Appoint IRP Proposed By Corporate Debtor: Madras High Court
Case Title: K.J. Vinod (Insolvency Professional) v. Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
The Madras High Court on Monday held that the suggestions of the financial creditor, operational creditor, or corporate debtor with regard to the appointment of the IRP are liable to be accepted.
While hearing a writ petition challenging the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai, the Madras High Court interpreted Sections 10 and 16 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The petition was filed challenging the appointment of the IRP, which deviated from the name proposed by the corporate debtor.
The bench noted that the combined reading of Sections 10(3)(b) and 16(2) of the Code lays down that the IBBI board is bound to accept the name suggested by the financial creditor or corporate debtor.
Case Title: Kayar Nisha and Another v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
The Madras High Court has reduced the sentence imposed on two women who had admonished a teen girl for having a relationship with their nephew, eventually leading to the girl’s suicide.
While the court upheld the conviction, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was inclined to reduce the sentence imposed on the women, noting the mitigating factors. The court noted the background of the women, and opined that their behaviour stemmed from an internalised misogyny which was a product of the male-dominated society. The court added that it was the society’s mindset that had prompted the women to question the girl for having a relationship, instead of admonishing their nephew.
Case Title: J Eswaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The Madras High Court recently observed that protests should not be conducted at the whims and fancies of political parties.
Justice B. Pugalendhi highlighted that political parties have a responsibility towards the general public who would be affected by the protests. The court added that the right to protest should not affect the right of the general public who are not associated with the protests.
The court also highlighted that the right to protest did not give a right to cause inconvenience to the public, and such right should not be used to cause irritation and disharmony. The court added that though protests could be carried out public places, its purpose should not be forgotten.
Case Title: ICICI Securities Limited versus Kariabettan Sugumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that once the petitioner chooses to file the appeal instead of directly approaching the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner cannot wriggle out of the two-tier arbitration, by stating that they were not given an opportunity by the Appellate Tribunal to prosecute the appeal on grounds of limitation.
Two-tier arbitration refers to a process where a dissatisfied party can file an appeal in the Appellate Tribunal.
Additionally, the court held that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and the petitioner cannot claim that they were not put on notice by the Appellate Tribunal about the fact that their appeal is barred by limitation.
Case Title: Malar Selvi v. The Director DVAC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption should not brush aside complaints merely because of the absence of documents. The court added that the DVAC was a specialised investigative agency and must gather evidence across all departments.
Justice B Pugalendhi added that as per the Vigilance Manual, the department had the power to discreetly verify facts, access roads, and conduct discreet searches. The court added that the strength of the department was crucial for preventing corruption. Noting that the department, at present was understaffed, the court asked the Government of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate steps to strengthen the department and enhance the sanctioned strength and infrastructure within 6 months.
Case Title: Dr.A.K.Boominathan v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
The Madras High Court has held that a aided college cannot compel its students to take part in any religious, communal or other activities which are not approved by the Department of Education.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete also observed that if it was found that an aided college was compelling students either directly or indirectly, the Director of Collegiate Education could initiate appropriate action to cancel the aid. The court added that aid should be granted only to colleges that follow the law and the Constitution.
The court also made it clear that no posters or banners indicating communal name or a group’s name should be affixed in the college premises and in case such posters are found, the police and the Department of Education could take all necessary action.
Case Title: Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court recently expressed shock over members of the Scheduled Caste community being made to wait for their turn till members from other community fetch water from the common tap.
Justice RN Manjula said that it was “surprising and pathetic” to note that even in this scientific age, some communities had to stand second in order to get their share of common resources. The court added that even though specific legislations had been brought in for protecting the vulnerable sections of the society, the situation still remained same at the grass root level.
The court added that while it may not be easy to remove the caste and class mentality from the minds of the people, the people in power could not remain mute spectators. The court emphasized that what was needed what not some make-believe stunt but some practical solution and noiseless action. Thus, being aware of the realities and doing things that can be best done with the power vested was the need of the hour, the court added.
Temple Entry Cannot Be Denied To Persons Based On Caste: Madras High Court
Case Title: Venkatesan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
The Madras High Court has emphasized that no person can be denied temple entry due to their caste, and action should be taken against any such person discriminating against persons who prevent individuals from participating in temple function.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that preventing people from entering temples and offering prayers on the basis of their caste was an affront to their dignity. The court added that such discrimination cannot be permitted in a country which was governed by the rule of law. The court also remarked that caste and community were human creations and the God was always considered neutral.
The court also highlighted that as per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act 1947, every Hindu, irrespective of his caste or sect, shall be entitled to enter a Hindu temple and offer worship. In case a person was restricted from entry, action could be taken against the concerned persons.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) earlier this month granted anticipatory bail to four men accused of provoking religious unrest by allegedly liking social media posts labelling RSS and Bajrang Dal as terrorist organisations.
A bench of Justice P Vadamalai observed that a mere ‘shared like’ on a social media post cannot be construed as an intention to hurt religious sentiments.
Case Title: Prakash Ramachandran v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court recently observed that Nama Sankeerthanam, devotees chanting the names of god in a religious gathering, cannot be permitted at a residential premises without the approval of the District Collector.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus restrained an individual from converting his residential house into a prayer hall and conducting nama sankeerthanam without the permission of the District Collector. The court added that if at all any prayer was to be conducted, it should be inside the house, without causing nuisance to anyone.
Though the individual claimed that the religious rights were protected under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution and that the prayer was being conducted for peace of mind, the court noted that what was divine to him was causing nuisance to the neighbours.
Case Title: R.K.M Powergen Private Limited v. The Assistant Director and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
The Madras High Court has reiterated that the Enforcement Directorate can initiate action only upon the existence of a predicate offence and cannot conduct investigations on its own.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan said that ED was not a super cop to investigate anything and everything that came to its notice. The court stressed that there must be criminal activity coming within the schedule of the Act, and there should be proceeds of crime based on which the ED will have jurisdiction to commence an investigation.
The court stressed that if an act was to be done in a particular way, it must be done in that way and no other way. The court added that if the ED was allowed to conduct an investigation merely on coming to know about any activity, the ED would be conducting roving enquiry.
Case Title: High Court of Madras v. Siva Das Meena IAS and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
The Madras High Court on Monday (July 21) criticised the former Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary Siva Das Meena over delay in implementing its order to set up a committee to look into the issues with respect to compassionate appointments.
Justice Battu Devanand orally remarked that if the Chief Secretary himself doesn’t comply with court order and implement it on time, how could the court expect other officers, who were working under him, to comply with the orders.
Though the counsel for the IAS officer told the court that he had “high regard” for the court, the judge orally remarked that it did not seem so, since the orders were not complied with on time.
Case Title: M/s. Eminent Textiles Mills Private Limited v. The State Tax Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
The Madras High Court stated that the GST authority can dismiss the rectification application without a personal hearing.
The issue before the bench was whether the third proviso to Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017, requires complying with the principles of natural justice even for dismissing a rectification petition.
The Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar observed that “When the rectification application is dismissed as such without there being anything more, the original order stands as such. In that event, there is no rectification at all. When there is no rectification, there is no question of invoking the principles of natural justice.”
Case Name : P. Sakkarai vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that a stale claim for retrospective promotion cannot be revived by a delayed representation after retirement. Further, no parity in promotion can be claimed across divisions following bifurcation into separate administrative divisions with distinct seniority lists.
It was held that after separate zones were created, each division maintained its own seniority list and promotion panel. Therefore, claim of parity across divisions could not be sustained. Further the petitioner’s reliance on the 1986 circular regarding unified seniority was held to be misplaced. Hence, no merit in the petition was found.
Case Title: R Ramkumar and Others v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
The Madras High Court has directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to remove the teaser of “Bad Girl” movie from YouTube after noting that the content disclosed exploitation of children and depicted them in a sexual manner.
Justice P Dhanabal on going through the content, opined that it could affect the minds of teenage children who will be able to access the content easily as it had been posted on the internet.
The court also highlighted that the State had a duty to protect the children, whose minds may be spoiled on coming across the content. Thus, the court observed that the content could not be allowed to continue and had to be removed.
Case Title: Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
The Madras High Court recently criticized the police authorities for closing down a public temple and denying entry to everyone in an effort to maintain public peace amidst communal tension. The court said that denying entry to everyone was not the way to keep peace, and the police had to make an effort to protect the rights of devotees.
Justice B Pugalendhi also criticized the District Collector for keeping a public temple closed, citing law and order problems without taking efforts to solve the problem. The court noted that if there was any real threat, the collector, as top officer of the District, should have used the State Machinery and handle the threat.
The court took note that the dispute was with regard to the entry of Scheduled Caste devotees in the temple. The court remarked that even after 75 years of independence, it was shocking that people were denied temple entry based on their caste. The court stressed that God did not belong to any caste and did not discriminate.
Case Name: P. Ganga Parameshwaran vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that excess pension paid due to a clerical or mechanical mistake in pay fixation to the factually ineligible employee can be recovered post-retirement. Further the protection against recovery laid down in Rafiq Masih case does not apply when eligibility itself is lacking.
It was observed by the Court that the mistake in pay fixation was purely mechanical. The Court held that the petitioner had served only 2 years and 7 months in the Selection Grade and thus was factually ineligible for the pension. The error was not interpretational but an objectively verifiable shortfall in qualifying service, therefore, there was no need for subjective assessment. It was further observed that the absence of prior notice amounted to procedural irregularity but it did not cause any real prejudice to the petitioner. It was observed by the court that since the pension was erroneously fixed based on inapplicable criteria, the petitioner was not entitled to the higher benefits granted to him.
Case Title: Palai Rafi @ Mohamed Rafi v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
The Madras High Court has granted bail to a 60-year old man who had participated in a protest objecting to the hijab judgment and had allegedly made hate speech against all political parties, and even the judiciary.
Justice P Vadamalai was inclined to grant bail on noting that the FIR was registered in March 2022 and probe might have been completed by this time. The court thus opined that no further interrogation was necessary. The court also noted that the man was 60-year-old and had been in custody since June 20, 2025. Thus, considering all the facts and the incarceration period, the court was inclined to grant conditional bail.
Madras High Court Appreciates TN Govt’s Move To Include ‘Economic Offender’ Under TN Goondas Act
Case Title: T Prabhakar v. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
The Madras High Court has appreciated the Tamil Nadu government for bringing in a GO, including “economic offender” as one of the categories under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The court said that the policy shift would strengthen the government’s power to combat economic offences.
Justice B Pugalendhi also noted that the state issued a Standard Operating Procedure, bringing in various departments to ensure that offences under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 is dealt with in a time-bound manner.
The court also appreciated the state for taking criticism in a positive manner and for taking steps to effectively implement the TNPID Act and ensure that the interest of the investors are protected. The court added that such responsiveness reinforces rule of law and helps restore the faith of common public in the efficacy of the system.
Case Title: Vanaraj and Others v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
The Madras High Court has criticised the ‘snail pace’ investigation being carried out in a kidnapping case, allegedly involving MLA ‘Poovai’ Jaganmoorthy and ADGP HM Jayaram.
Justice G Jayachandran remarked that it was not a regular case which could be closed on a compromise between the parties, but was a classic case of abuse of Government machinery to commit a crime.
The court noted that the incident and the subsequent follow-up events would raise serious concerns about the life and liberty of common men and would raise reasonable apprehension on people’s mind that the grate nation was “drifting towards a police raj”.
Case Title: Muniraj v The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The Madras High Court has highlighted that under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, no preliminary enquiry should be conducted before registration of an FIR when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence under the Act.
Justice P Velmurugan noted that the intention of the legislature while inserting Section 18A(1)(a) of the SC/ST Act was to ensure immediate registration of complaints without procedural obstructions or administrative delays.
Madras High Court Refuses Permission To Exhume COVID Victim’s Body For Reburial In Family Grave
Case Title: The Commissioner, GCC and Others v. S Jaya and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
The Madras High Court has refused the exhumation of the body of a person who died due to Covid-19, noting that there was nothing to show that the deceased was not given a decent burial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice M Jothiraman observed that once a body is buried, it should not be disturbed as removing it might cause the “spread of harmful diseases”. The court also noted that if such exhumation was allowed, it would set a precedent for all families, who have lost their closed ones and would endanger the larger public. It also noted that there was no specific provision of law in India relating to the exhumation of the body except Section 176(3) CrPCC.
Case Title: CJ Christopher Signi v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
The Madras High Court recently noted that an apprehension that some contents may be altered was not a ground for refusing forensic examination. The court added that such apprehension only reinforces the need for an expert analysis.
“The apprehension that the contents may have been altered is not a justification for refusing forensic examination. On the contrary, such concerns reinforce the need for expert analysis. A determination as to whether the files were edited or manipulated can only be reached by a competent forensic authority, not through assumptions or oral statements by lay witnesses,” the court said.
Justice B Pugalendhi noted that the issue of whether compelling voice samples would be violative of the fundamental right to privacy was no longer res integra and the right to privacy can be curtailed when there is a larger public interest involved.
Case Title: A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by YouTuber Savukku Shankar alleging that the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, had been interfering with the functioning of his company “Savukku Media”.
The court said that there was no material to show that the commissioner was interfering with the working of the company.
“Since there are several complaints against the Petitioner (Shankar) which are under investigation, prima facie there is no material to show that the 3rd respondent (Commissioner) is interfering with the functioning of the petitioner organisation,” the court said.
Justice Velmurugan was hearing a petition filed by Shankar alleging that the Commissioner was subjecting him and his employees to various unlawful actions since he had been exposing police atrocities and misconduct through his YouTube channel. He had alleged that the police had been tracking his movements and subjecting him to harassment.
Case Title: S. H. Zarina Begum v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
The Madras High Court has directed the Director General of Police to place a Deputy Superintendent of Police under suspension for failing to submit a closure report and for failing to comply with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 173 of the CrPC.
Justice P Velmurugan noted that it was not an isolated case and on several instances, the court was coming across cases in which complaints were closed without filing any final report before the competent court. In the present case, the court noted that though the decision to close the case was taken in 2022, the final report was not filed before the concerned court till a notice was issued on the present plea.
The court added that if the present case had not been filed, the inaction would have continued indefinitely, and the closure report might never have been filed. The court remarked that the approach of the police reflected a serious lapse in adherence to legal procedure and a denial of justice to the affected parties.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Regulate Media Reporting Of Aviation Accidents
Case Title: M Pravin v. The Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea calling upon the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Director General of Civil Aviation, and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue necessary guidelines/advisories for media reporting in the aftermath of aviation accidents.
The bench of Chief Justice MM Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan dismissed the plea filed by Advocate M Pravin.
Pointing to the recent media reporting in the aftermath of the Ahmedabad Plane Crash, Pravin said that often, after aviation incidents, news agencies and social media platforms publish unverified content prejudicing and attributing the blame to the pilots. It was also submitted that such prejudicial reporting damages the reputation of pilots and their career prospects and affects their personal dignity and well-being.
Case Title: Harinaa v. The Regional Passport Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
The Madras High Court has directed the passport authorities to consider an application filed by a “Stateless woman”, born to Sri Lankan parents, seeking an Indian passport.
Justice C Saravanan of the Madurai bench noted that there were overwhelming records available to indicate that the woman was born in India and was issued a Birth Certificate. The court also noted that documents had been produced to show that the woman had completed her schooling in India and had also pursued her undergraduate degree in India. The court thus noted that there was nothing to show that the woman had travelled from Sri Lanka or that she had entered the country illegally.
Case Title: C. Ve Shanmugam v The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
The Madras High Court has made it clear that while launching and operating a government welfare scheme, the advertisements should not contain the name of any living personality, photograph of any former Chief Minister/ideological leader or party insignia, emblem, or flag of the party.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Common Cause and others, had clarified that publication of a photograph of the incumbent Chief Minister was permissible but use of photographs of ideological leaders or former Chief Ministers was prima facie against the directives of the Supreme Court.
The bench also noted that it was impermissible to mention the name of political personalities in the nomenclature of a government scheme. The court also noted that using the name of any ruling political party was also against the directives of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India.