Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 246 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 256 NOMINAL INDEX 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...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 246 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
NOMINAL INDEX
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
REPORT
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.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Sworn In As Chief Justice Of Madras High Court
Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava has been sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. The oath of office was administered to him by the Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi at Raj Bhavan today.
On 14 July 2025, the Centre notified the transfer of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava from the Rajasthan High Court to the Madras High Court. The collegium had recommended the transfer on 26th May, 2025.
Case Title: Rajkumar v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: W.P(MD)No.19826 of 2025
The Madras High Court is set to examine how right to privacy is affected when data of citizens is collected during a membership drive by the political parties.
The Madurai bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete noted that the DMK party was conducting door-to-door campaigning collecting data. However, it was not known how this data was stored and what its implications were on the right to privacy of the voter. Thus, the court has set out to examine the same.
The court has also directed the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party to give details on how data, collected as part of the party's membership drive is stored. Meanwhile the bench has also restrained the party from sending OTP verification messages in the “Oraniyil Tamil Nadu Membership Drive”.
Case Title: E Marees Kumar v. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: WP(MD) 17949 of 2025
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to pay Rs. 25 Lakh as interim compensation to the family of the temple guard who was killed in Sivaganga, following custodial torture.
When the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete was informed that the state had already paid Rs. 7.5 Lakh as interim compensation to the family along with land for the mother and a government job for the brother of the deceased, the court said that the compensation of Rs. 7.5 Lakh was not sufficient. The court noted that in similar cases, a higher amount had been paid to victims of custodial torture.
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court questioning a new scheme introduced by the state government titled “Ungaludan Stalin”, which is an initiative to address the needs and grievances of the public.
The plea, moved by Advocate Dr. M Sathya Kumar, seeks to declare such usage as unconstitutional, illegal and void and restrain the usage of the name “Ungaludan Stalin” for any public-funded scheme, advertisement, programme, or grievance mechanism. The plea also asks state to adopt a neutral and institutional name for all current and future schemes, free from personal identification with any living political leader.
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court against a press release issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu appointing four senior IAS officers as Government Press Spokespersons.
The plea, filed by Advocate Dr M Sathya Kumar states that public servants should not be used for party's obligations. It has been submitted that by appointing the officers as government spokesperson, a role which does not have a legal definition or legislative backing, there was a risk of conflicting government communication with political messaging. It has been contended that by appointing civil servants to serve the interest of the ruling political party, the very purpose of Constitutional mandate, constitutional morality, and principles of federalism is defeated.
Madras High Court Summons Lawyer Who Alleged Communal And Caste Bias By Judge
The Madras High Court has summoned an advocate S Vanchinathan for alleging that communal and caste bias by Justice GR Swaminathan.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice K Rajasekar opined that the scandalous allegations made by Vanchinathan constituted criminal contempt of court. Since a direct question to Vanchinathan, on whether he stood by his statement did not bring in any reply, the court posed the question to him in writing and asked him to respond by 28th July at 1:15pm in person.
The court was hearing a writ appeal when it noted that Vanchinathan had filed Vakalat for one of the parties. Noting that Vanchinathan had been alleging that Justice Swaminathan had been exhibiting communal and caste bias in discharging judicial duties, and had been attributing improper motive to the judge, the bench summoned Vanchinathan to appear before it in person.
Case Title: KE Kavin Kumar v. State
Case No: Crl OP 20949 of 2025
The Madras High Court has directed the State to respond to a bail plea filed by the husband and mother-in-law of Rithanya, who committed suicide due to alleged dowry harassment.
When the matter came up before Justice M Nirmal Kumar, Advocate Muthuchharan Sundaresh informed the court that Rithanya's father also intends to file an intervening petition in the case. It was submitted that the same is yet to be filed. The Public Prosecutor took notice for the State and has been asked to respond to the plea in a week.
Case Title: Vignesh D v. The Health and Family Welfare Department and Others
Case NO: WP No. 26062 of 2025 (and connected cases)
The Madras High Court has issued notice on a plea filed by a transgender person, claiming that the medical college where they were pursuing their medical degree had withheld their original documents and made an arbitrary fee demand.
Justice C Kumarappan has issued notices, returnable by 7th August, 2025, to the Health and Family Welfare Department, Social Welfare and Woman Empowerment Department, Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Committee on fixation of fee in respect of Self-Financing Professional Colleges, National Medical Commission, TN MGR Medical University, TN Medical Council and Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Medical College and Hospital.