Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 272 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 276 NOMINAL INDEX Murugesan v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 272 Varaaki v. The Registrar General and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 273 D Thenmozhi v The Inspector of Police (law and Order) and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 274 M Gunasekaran v. The State Level Scrutiny Committee – II and Another, 2025...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 272 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
NOMINAL INDEX
Murugesan v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
Varaaki v. The Registrar General and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
D Thenmozhi v The Inspector of Police (law and Order) and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
M Gunasekaran v. The State Level Scrutiny Committee – II and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
S Vijay v. Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
REPORT
Case Title: Murugesan v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
The Madras High Court recently observed that though pulling the hands of a woman by a man would shock her sense of decency, it would not amount to outraging the modesty of the woman if there was no criminal intention.
Justice RN Manjula added that without any clear evidence about the intention of the man, vague or generalised statements would only earn a benefit of doubt in favour of the accused with respect to his criminal intention.
The court thus set aside the conviction of a man, sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 354 of the IPC.
Case Title: Varaaki v. The Registrar General and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking to forbear retired judges from issuing public letters, appeals, or statements allegedly intended to influence pending judicial proceedings, particularly in matters involving allegations against sitting Judges.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan called the plea a “publicity interest litigation” and remarked that judges are not affected by such statements made against them. The court thus dismissed the plea and imposed cost.
The plea was filed in light of the recent letter written by retired judges of the Madras High Court to sitting judge Justice GR Swaminathan, after the latter called for an explanation from a lawyer for raising caste bias allegation against the judge.
Case Title: D Thenmozhi v The Inspector of Police (law and Order) and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday, directed the State to take action to remove the Greater Chennai Corporation sanitation workers who have been protesting at the Rippon Building for almost 12 days demanding a reversal of the Corporation's decision to privatise solid waste management in some zones.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the workers could protest only at authorised places. Since the rippon building was not an authorised place for protest, and since no permission had been taken to conduct the protest, the court ordered them to be removed from the place.
The court also added that it would be open for the protesting workers to make applications to the concerned authorities seeking permission for conducting the protest, which could be considered appropriately.
Case Title: M Gunasekaran v. The State Level Scrutiny Committee – II and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
The Madras High Court has delivered a split verdict on whether the community status of a government employee can be verified/scrutinised after their retirement.
While Justice Nisha Banu opined that reopening the verification of a community certificate would amount to re-litigation, Justice M Jothiraman opined that once a verification starts, it should continue till its conclusion.
Since contradictory views have been taken by the judges, the Registry has been directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for further action.
The court was hearing two writ petitions filed by M Gunasekaran and G Thangavel seeking to restrain the SC/ST Vigilance Cell from conducting verification of their respective caste status. In both cases, the persons were issued notices calling upon them to appear for an enquiry in connection with the verification of their community certificate, years after their retirement.
Case Title: S Vijay v. Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
The Madras High Court on Thursday (August 14) directed the release of four lawyers and two law students who were detained by the police at midnight in connection with the Greater Chennai Corporation sanitation workers protest.
A division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan passed the interim orders in a habeas corpus petition against the detention of lawyers and law students who joined the protest yesterday.
Incidentally, on Wednesday a coordinate bench had directed the State to take action to remove the Greater Chennai Corporation sanitation workers who have been protesting at the Rippon Building for almost 12 days demanding a reversal of the Corporation's decision to privatise solid waste management in some zones.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Zee Media Corporation Limited
Case No: CS 185 of 2014
The Madras High Court has ordered commencement of trial in a defamation suit filed by cricketer Mahendra Singh Dhoni in 2014, seeking permanent injunction against media companies, restraining them and their parties from publishing defamatory content against Dhoni in connection with the 2013 IPL betting scandal.
Justice CV Karthikeyan also appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record Dhoni's evidence at an agreeable place from October 20 to December 10, as his presence in the court for the chief examination may lead to chaos. Dhoni's counsel assured the court that he would extend full cooperation to the process.
Dhoni had filed the defamation suit in 2014 against Zee Media Corporation, Sudhir Chaudhary- Editor & Business Head of Zee News, IPS Officer G Sampath Kumar, and News Nation Network Pvt Ltd. He had also sought damages of Rs. 100 Crore.
A 14-year-old girl attempted suicide at the Madras High Court on Tuesday, after she was ordered to be sent to a Government Children's Home. As per reports, she has been taken to the hospital after sustaining serious injuries and is under observation.
The girl had come to the court in connection with a habeas corpus petition filed by her father. The father had filed a complaint before the Neelankarai Police Station for missing child. Since a considerable time had lapsed and the girl could not be secured, the father had approached the court with a habeas corpus petition.
Case Title: RS Tamilvendan v. The Chennai Corporation Commissioner
Case No: WP No. 29652 of 2025
The Madras High Court, on Thursday, orally remarked that shelter homes should be established to protect stray dogs, in addition to sterilizing and vaccinating them. The court has also asked the State government to give a detailed report on steps that could be taken to prevent stray dog bites, while ensuring that the stray dogs are not harmed/harassed in the process.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan was hearing a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Chennai Corporation Commissioner, the Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary, and the Chennai District Collector to ban rottweiler dogs in public, causing inconvenience to the public.