Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 271 NOMINAL INDEX Davidson Devasirvatham v A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 MP Ranjan Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 264 Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 265 Dr. M Sathya Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
NOMINAL INDEX
Davidson Devasirvatham v A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
MP Ranjan Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
Dr. M Sathya Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
Malliga v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
SSI Production v. The Director General of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
P Paramasivam v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
S Sunil v. Senthamarai and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Dr. R. Anbumani and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
REPORT
Case Title: Davidson Devasirvatham v A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
The Madras High Court has restrained YouTuber Savukku Shankar from making allegations against IPS officer Davidson Devasirvatham, implicating him in the recent custodial death of Ajith in Sivaganga.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the statements made by Shankar were prima facie derogatory and defamatory, which would affect the reputation of the officer. Thus, considering the restrictions on the right to freedom of speech, the court was inclined to restrain Shankar temporarily from making the allegations.
Case Title: MP Ranjan Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
The Madras High Court has permitted the Tamil Nadu Congress SC Wing to conduct a hunger strike demanding special laws against caste based honor killings.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy took note of the State's submission that it was willing to permit the hunger strike if the same was to be conducted in a designated area. Since the party agreed to conduct the hunger strike in the earmarked place, the court directed it to make a fresh submission, which was to be permitted by the State with conditions that the Commissioner may deem fit.
The court noted that, as far as Chennai was concerned, some areas had been earmarked for conducting protests. Since the state also expressed willingness to permit the hunger strike if conducted at these places, the court directed accordingly.
Case Title: Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
The Madras High Court held that digital marketing is a business and not a profession; and an audit report is not required for turnovers below Rs. 5 crores.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “Digital Marketing is the business for persons who carry out the said activities. In the event anybody carrying on the business of Digital Marketing with cash transactions both on the aspect of receipts and payments in cash below 5% of the turnover, which is below Rs.5 Crores as per the proviso to Section 44 AB (a), the said assessee is not required to file an audit report and they are exempted.”
Case Title: Dr. M Sathya Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
The Madras High Court, on Thursday, dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the recent appointment of 4 IAS officers as Government Press Spokesperson.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan said that the IAS officers were appointed as the State Government's spokesperson and not as the ruling party's spokesperson. The court also noted that no laws had been violated at the time of making the appointments and thus, was not inclined to entertain the plea. The court thus dismissed the plea with Rs. 1 Lakh costs.
Case Title: Malliga v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
The Madras High Court has set aside the detention order passed against 14 persons who have been accused to be involved in the murder of BSP Leader Armstrong in July 2024.
While setting aside the detention order, the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Laksminarayanan noted that the detaining authority, while passing the detention orders, appeared to have scrutinised 14,000 pages in a day, which was an impossible task for any human being. The court thus observed that the detaining authority did not apply its mind, while passing the detention order.
Case Title: SSI Production v. The Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Police to provide protection to movie-theatres screening the Vijay Devarakonda starrer “Kingdom”.
The direction assumes significance amid backlash from Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) party chief Seeman, who took offence to the manner in which the Tamil Ellam issue is allegedly portrayed in the movie.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that in a democracy, the movie-makers have a right to express their views and a third party cannot threaten the theatre owners or prevent the screening of the movie if they disagree with the views expressed in the movie.
The court reiterated that screening of a movie, which had been duly certified by the censor board, could not be halted merely because there was difference of opinion.
Case Title: P Paramasivam v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
The Madras High Court has recently remarked that the depiction of Hindu gods in a disrespectful manner could not be justified. The court added that depicting Gods in such a manner had the potential to spark enmity, religious outrage, and affect the communal harmony.
Justice K Murali Shankar added that, considering the respect that was given to the religious symbols and deities, such actions of depicting the Gods should be dealt with sensitively. The court added that the Government should ensure that freedom of expression does not hurt the religious feelings of the people. In doing so, the court set aside the trial court order closing the case.
Case Title: S Sunil v. Senthamarai and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
A Madras High Court division bench has stayed the operation of a single judge order asking the Director General of Police to suspend a Deputy Superintendent of Police for failing to file final report in a case.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan ordered interim stay in a Letter Patent Appeal filed by the DySP challenging the order passed by Justice P Velmurugan, directing the DGP to take action.
When a question was raised as to the maintainability of a Letter Patent Appeal against an order by a judge exercising criminal jurisdiction, the court noted that the LPA would be maintainable against that part of the order, wherein the judge was not exercising criminal jurisdiction.
Case Title: Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Dr. R. Anbumani and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Pattali Makkal Katchi party, through its General Secretary against the public meeting convened by former Party president Anbumani Ramadoss.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the entire issue was an unfortunate ego clash between Dr. S. Ramadoss, the party's founder and his son Anbumani Ramadoss. Noting that a writ petition was not maintainable in case of private dispute, the court was not inclined to order the relief.
The court added that the argument of whether the party's bye-laws had been violated by calling the meeting could not be gone into by the High Court in writ proceedings, and at best, it could only be a subject of civil proceedings.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: X. v The Union of India and Another
Case No: WP 25017 of 2025
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday, asked the Central Government to consider the possibility of blocking websites which host non-consensual intimate images and prevent their resurfacing, in the same manner as was done at the time of Operation Sindoor.
“Nation is but a conglomerate of citizens. Every citizen is as important as the country itself. The effort we took for Operation Sindoor should be used even if it is for a single citizen,” the court orally remarked.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, the Central Government had blocked over 1400 URLs that contained adverse references/misinformation/propaganda campaigns against Operation Sindoor and prevented it from resurfacing. The court said that the expert committee constituted by the Centre could take the same approach and block the sites in which the non-consensual intimate images of women were being published.
Case Title: S Suhma v Director General of Police
Case No: WP No 7284 of 2021
The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to take a call on providing horizontal reservation to transgender and intersex persons.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh held that a decision had to be taken in this regard so that transgender and intersex persons do not have to knock on the doors of the court every time and seek reservation in public employment and educational institutions.
The court also appreciated the State Government for bringing in the Tamil Nadu State Policy for Transgender Persons 2025, becoming the 7th State in the country for bring in a policy for transgender and intersex persons.
Case Title: Akash Baskaran v. The Joint Director
Case No: WP Crl 71 of 2025
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (August 6) imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 each in three petitions filed by film producer Akash Bhaskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran against the ED's search conducted at their residence and office.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Laksminarayanan noted that the court, in the previous hearing, had granted more time to the directorate to file a counter as a last opportunity. Thus, when the Special Prosecutor sought additional time for filing a counter today, the court said that it would grant time but would also impose a fine on the directorate.
Thus, the court imposed Rs. 10K fine each on the three petitions and granted two weeks' time for the directorate to file its counter.
Case Title: SSI Production v. The Director General of Polce and Others
Case No: WP Crl 519 of 2025
The Madras High Court on Wednesday remarked that the members belonging to the Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) had a right to protest peacefully against the Vijay Devarakonda starrer movie “Kingdom” if they were offended with the alleged portrayal of Tamil Ellam issue, but they could not go into the theatres and prevent the screening.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a petition filed by SSI Production, which had bagged the Tamil Nadu theatrical rights for the movie. The production house had approached the court seeking police protection to enable peaceful and uninterrupted screening of the movie after NTK Chief Seeman alleged that the movie portrayed Tamil eelam issue in a derogatory manner and threatened to forcefully stop the screening.