Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 212 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 220 NOMINAL INDEX Pastor L.Joseph Wilson v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 212 Karuppan v. The District Magistrate-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 Another v....
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 212 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
NOMINAL INDEX
Pastor L.Joseph Wilson v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
Karuppan v. The District Magistrate-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 Another v. The Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
P Karthikeyan v. The General Manager and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
Tamil Film Active Producers Association (TFAPA) v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
The Principal Accountant General (A&E) v. A.V Jerald and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
M/s. Sharma Centre for Heritage Education and Another 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
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
The Madras High Court has reiterated that a house cannot be converted into a prayer hall without necessary permission from the authorities.
Justice Anand Venkatesh was referring to T. Wilson v. District Collector, Kanyakumari Dist and Ors. (2021) where a coordinate bench had held that a religious right cannot be claimed to be absolute and prayer meetings attended by huge crowds would require obtaining necessary permission under the relevant rules.
In the present case, the bench also rejected an undertaking given by the petitioner saying that the house prayer will be conducted peacefully without using any loudspeakers. The court said that mere non-usage of microphone and loudspeaker will not solve the issue and what was needed was proper permission from authorities.
Case Title: Karuppan v. The District Magistrate-cum-District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
The Madras High Court recently held that only a person who has transferred the property with a specific condition for maintenance would be able to file an application to cancel the settlement under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus quashed the order of the Sub-Collector cancelling the settlement deed executed by a father, on an application filed by the mother. The court noted that the mother could not have filed the application to cancel the settlement of the property, which was settled by the father.
The Madras High Court recently held that only a person who has transferred the property with a specific condition for maintenance would be able to file an application to cancel the settlement under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus quashed the order of the Sub-Collector cancelling the settlement deed executed by a father, on an application filed by the mother. The court noted that the mother could not have filed the application to cancel the settlement of the property, which was settled by the father.
Case Title: M. Kannan @ Solai Kannan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
The Madras High Court has delivered a split verdict on pleas challenging the performance of animal sacrifice at the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah situated at the Thiruparakundram Hills, which also houses the temple Arulmighu Subramaniaswamy Thirukovil.
While Justice Nisha Banu refused to interfere with the practice of animal sacrifice, Justice S Srimathy took a different view and said that the Dargah should approach the civil court to establish their right to practice the Kandoori animal sacrifice and prayers during Ramzan, Bakrid and other Islamic festivals. The matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
The Thiruparakundram Hills houses both the Kasivishwanathar temple and Sikkandar darga. The hill also consists of Jain temples. Recently, the hill became the eye of the storm, when an attempt was made to perform animal sacrifice at the Dargah. The present petitions were filed to prevent the Dargah and its Jamaat members from carrying out animal sacrifice at the hill and from serving food prepared by animal sacrifice.
Case Title: D Babu Rajendra Bose and Another v. The Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
The Madras High Court has upheld an order of the State Human Rights Commission recommending compensation of ₹1,00,000 for police brutality meted out to a man in custody.
Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice M Jothiraman observed that police officials have a critical role in maintaining law and order while upholding human rights. The court remarked that police officials must respect human dignity, avoid discrimination, and protect vulnerable groups. The court also highlighted that officials must adhere to human rights standing orders and must prevent abuse.
Bank Appointment Can Be Cancelled Over Poor CIBIL Rating: Madras High Court Upholds SBI's Decision
Case Title: P Karthikeyan v. The General Manager and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with an order passed by the State Bank of India cancelling the appointment of a man over an adverse credit history in his CIBIL report.
Justice N Mala observed that the banking business required financial discipline as the employees dealt with public money. The court added that a person with poor financial discipline could not be trusted with handling public money and thus the bank was right in holding that persons with adverse CIBIL were ineligible for appointment.
The court noted that, as per the eligibility criteria, it was crystal clear that maintaining a clear record of repayment of loans without any default was the requirement. Perusing the CIBIL report submitted by the Bank, the court noted that there were 9 irregular credit facilities and more than 10 credit enquiries against the petitioner. The court also noted that the petitioner had also admitted to defaulting the repayment of loans. The court also rejected the argument of discrimination and noted that only those candidates who have fulfilled the necessary criteria were given appointment.
Case Title: Tamil Film Active Producers Association (TFAPA) v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the Tamil Film Active Producers Association (TFAPA) seeking to prevent online reviews of movies within the first three days of release.
Justice Anand Venkatesh dismissed the plea, stating that such a relief was unsustainable and could not be granted by the courts. The court observed that such a relief, if granted, would amount to curbing the fundamental right to speech and expression of the citizens.
The court also pointed out that in this age of social media, it was not possible to prevent a person from posting reviews. It was also observed that such a review of the film's quality was part of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. Saying that the producers could not expect only positive reviews, the court highlighted that even judges were often criticised on social media.
Case Title: The Principal Accountant General (A&E) v. A.V Jerald and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
The Madras High Court has stressed that pension is a matter of right and not charity and the authorities should exhibit alacrity while disbursing pension for the benefit of mentally disabled persons.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice K Rajasekar observed that pension should be seen as a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, and effort must be taken to effectuate the benevolent object of the statutory rules.
The court thus observed that pensions to sons/daughters of government servants, who were mentally disabled and fell within the scope of pension rules must be disbursed on submission of medical certificate without insisting on the income certificate. The court also added that the order sanctioning the pension must be passed without any 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 Education and Another v. The Director, FRCA Wing
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
The Madras High Court has held that merely because an NGO was running with the aid of foreign contribution, it should not be looked at with suspicion unless there is material to show that the foreign contribution has been misused.
Justice Anand Venkatesh held that unless there was a serious violation of the foreign funds, the authorities should have an open mind while dealing with the institutions.
The court held that Section 7, as it stood before amendment, allowed transfer of foreign contribution to other person who was also registered under the Act. However, after the amendment in 2020, even such a transfer to a registered person had to be with the prior permission of the competent authority. The court thus opined that even if the authorities were of the opinion that there was a violation, they should have called for clarification from the petitioners and informed them about the amendment.
The court also highlighted that in the present case, there was no material to show that the foreign contribution was misused. The court held that just because a procedural formality was not followed, it should not be put against the trust and reject renewal, which would ultimately result in closing the institutions.
Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To MLA Poovai Jaganmoorthy In Alleged Abduction Case
Case Title: M. Jaganmoorthy v. Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
The Madras High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by the KV Kuppam MLA "Poovai" Jagan Moorthy in connection with the alleged abduction of a minor boy.
Justice G Jayachandran dismissed the bail plea filed by the MLA, noting that there was "prima facie" material to proceed against him.
The MLA had approached the court apprehending arrest in connection with an abduction case registered by the Thiruvallur Police Station based on a complaint by one Lakshmi. Lakshmi had alleged that her elder son had married a girl without the consent of the girl's family. Thereafter, the girl's family, with some miscreants, entered their house in search of her elder son. Since the elder son and his wife went into hiding, the miscreants abducted her younger 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 High Court has issued notices on a contempt plea regarding encroachment of temple land.
The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Sunder Mohan issued notices to Ms P. Amudha IAS (Secretary to Government – Department of Revenue and Disaster Management), Ms S. Madhumathi IAS (Secretary to Government – Department of School Education), Dr. B. Chandramohan IAS (Secretary to Government – Department of Tourism, Culture and HR & CE Department), Mr PN Sridhar IAS (Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administration Department), Ms. Sibi Adithiya Senthilkumar IAS (District Collector, Cuddalore) and two joint commissioners of HR & CE Department.
The notices were issued in a contempt plea filed by S. Vinoth Ragavendran against the non-compliance of an earlier order of the court in April 2024 by which the court had directed the State to find alternate land for a school that was allegedly functioning on a temple land.
Case Title: M Jaganmoorthy v. The Inspector of Police
Case No: Crl OP 17521 of 2025
While opposing the pre-arrest bail of MLA Poovai Jaganmoorthy in connection with an abduction case, the Tamil Nadu government on Friday (June 27) told the Madras High Court that it wanted to decriminalise politics in the State.
Making submissions before Justice G Jayachandran, Additional Advocate General J Ravindran said that the present case should become a guiding light for all future cases involving legislators. Ravindran also alleged that the MLA was the brain behind the entire episode. He pointed out that there were contradictions in the MLA's statements, which would show his active involvement in the case.
“Now we're going for decriminalising in politics. So, this should not be treated as a regular anticipatory bail petition. This order should be a guiding factor for all such cases, including legislators in the future,” Ravindran said.