Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 123 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 131 NOMINAL INDEX The Principal & Secretary, Women's Christian College and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 123NS Krishnamoorthi and Others v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 124S Ramya v. The Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 125The General Manager and Others v....
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 123 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
NOMINAL INDEX
The Principal & Secretary, Women's Christian College and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
NS Krishnamoorthi and Others v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
S Ramya v. The Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
The General Manager and Others v. SV. Mothilal, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
Ma Subramanian and Another v. State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
Dr. Sangeetha Sriraam v. The Teachers Recruitment Board and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
C. Ve. Shanmugam v. The Public Prosecutor, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
STS-KEC(JV) v. The State Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
M/s Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
REPORT
Case Title: The Principal & Secretary, Women's Christian College and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
While reiterating that the UGC norms for the selection of Assistant professors and the Principal do not apply to minority institutions, the Madras High Court recently emphasised the need to protect the rights of minority institutions.
Justice Anand Venkatesh remarked that the Constitution had included provisions to safeguard the rights of the minority institutions, to protect the cultural and educational identity of the minority communities.
The judge added that when these rights are threatened, the Constitutional Courts have a duty to intervene and reaffirm their commitment to ensure that the foundational ideals of justice and equality are upheld.
Case Title: NS Krishnamoorthi and Others v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
The Madras High Court has recently clarified that when a grama natham land (village house site) is occupied by an individual and such occupation has been recognized by the State through successive transfers, it becomes the private property of the occupant and such lands cannot be regarded as government lands.
While doing so, Justice Anand Venkatesh criticised an earlier order passed by the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar for taking a different view. The single judge remarked that the division bench's direction was directly in conflict with the declared law and the court had virtually directed the State to issue a fresh circular on the lines of an earlier circular that had already been declared unconstitutional by various decisions.
Though the single judge also pondered on the necessity of referring the matter to a larger bench, the judge further noted that since the division bench had failed to follow binding precedents, the decision itself was per incuriam.
Case Title: S Ramya v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
The Madras High Court has asked the Union Government to consider the citizenship application of a woman, born in 1987 to a Sri Lankan couple settled in India, without insisting she return to Sri Lanka and come back to India with a visa.
Noting that it was a unique case, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that though the applicant could be considered a foreigner, she had not entered India without valid documents as she was born in the country. The court thus asked the authorities to take into account all parameters required under the Citizenship Act for granting citizenship without insisting on the sole requirement of returning to Sri Lanka and re-entering India as a legal migrant.
The court also noted that the applicant could not be considered an illegal migrant as an illegal migrant was a foreigner who had entered India without a valid passport and travel documents. The court noted that in the present case, the applicant had been under the impression that she was an Indian citizen, had an Indian passport and all relevant documents. The court also noted that the applicant never held a Sri Lankan passport or any document indicating she was a citizen of that country.
Case Title: The General Manager and Others v. SV. Mothilal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the General Manager & Reviewing Authority of the Canara Bank against an order of the single judge quashing the disciplinary proceedings against an employee.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice P Vadamalai noted that while disciplinary proceedings usually take a few months to conclude, the disciplinary proceedings in the present case were concluded within two weeks. The court thus said that the committee had shown undue hate for bringing the enquiry to a closure.
The court remarked that disciplinary proceedings are not like a bullet train journey and should be conducted in a manner with a possibility of “two roads diverging in the yellow woods”. While the court noted that the proceedings need not be slow, it had to be carried on with a reasonable speed. The court added that the proceedings should be permeated with fairness and the end result should not be premeditated.
Case Title: Ma Subramanian and Another v. State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash the charge sheet filed by the CB- CID against Health and Family Welfare Minister Ma Subramanian and his wife in a case of alleged land grabbing.
Though Subramaniam had argued that the complaint was filed due to political motive, Justice P Velmurugan noted that there were prima facie materials to proceed with the trial. The court added that when the complaint disclosed prima facie allegations, the malafide intention of the complainant was of no consequence.
The court added that while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC, the courts could not appreciate the evidence but only evaluate the materials to be prima facie satisfied that there were sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial. The court added that the powers under the Section could not be used as an instrument for the accused to short-circuit the prosecution and bring it to a sudden death.
Case Title: Dr. Sangeetha Sriraam v. The Teachers Recruitment Board and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
The Madras High Court recently observed that that the one-year LLM programme was approved by the UGC and could not be held to be invalid for getting appointed into public departments or Universities. The court thus asked the Teachers Recruitment Board to include the name of a woman whose name was withheld merely because she had done a one-year LLM course.
Justice RN Manjula observed that the notification for appointment did not prescribe that one of the requirements for the appointment was only a two-year LLM degree. The court observed that while the employer could demand the educational requirement for a post, the qualification contemplated could not be arbitrary and bring in discrimination between similar courses.
Case Title: C. Ve. Shanmugam v. The Public Prosecutor
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
While quashing a criminal case registered against AIADMK's C. Ve Shanmugam for his comments about the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court underscored the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to dissent.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that in a democracy, the opposition has a role to point out the failures of the government. The court added that Article 19(1)(a) was a vehicle through which dissent could be expressed, and thus, Shanmugam's speech could only be construed as a dissent and criticism against the current government.
The court also highlighted that the free speech of the citizens could not be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases unless the speech had a tendency to affect the public order.
Works Contract For Track Doubling & Infrastructure Under RVNL Is Liable To 12% GST: Madras HighCourt
Case Title: STS-KEC(JV) v. The State Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
The Madras High Court stated that the works contract for track doubling and infrastructure under RVNL is liable to 12% GST.
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq stated that “it may be relevant to keep in mind that while exemption notifications must be strictly construed, it certainly would not mean that the scope of the exemption notification can be curtailed by importing conditions or giving an artificially restrictive meaning to the words in an exemption notification.”
Case Title: M/s Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
The Madras High Court while referring sections 43B and 40A Income Tax Act explained which provision prevails when both commence with a non-obstante clause.
The Division Bench of Justices Dr. Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan stated that “the Rule that a general provision should yield to specific provision springs from the common understanding that when two directions are given one encompassing a large number of matters in general and another to only some, the latter directions should prevail as being more specific in nature.”
One of the parameters to determine priority of one legislation / provision over the other, is as to which was the later provision and the general understanding is that the later would prevail. However, in the case, the provisions of Section 40(A)(7), particularly clause (b) are specific to a claim of deduction based on a provision for payment towards an approved gratuity fund, stated the bench.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case No: WP 10348/ 2025
“Does your government and police not conduct searches?” the Madras High Court orally asked the Tamil Nadu government today while hearing its plea challenging the recent searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate at the headquarters of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC).
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar posed the question to Advocate General PS Raman when he submitted that the ED had conducted searches late in the night, not even allowing the officers to leave the office premises.
As Justice Subramaniam orally indicated that even State agencies conduct raids and searches, Raman responded that unlike ED, the State does not conduct searches late in the night.
Case Title: Sunil M.P v. The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University and Others
Case No: WP No. 10056 of 2025
The Madras High Court on Wednesday directed Dr C Pratap, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), to evaluate the Criminology and Penology paper of a law student in his plea for revaluation.
Doubtful of the transparency followed by the University in the evaluation process, Justice N Mala also asked Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University if the answer keys are provided for the semester examination. The court also asked for details of the criteria followed for awarding marks in the absence of answer keys.
Case Title: Miss. Amanda Miriam Fernandez. R v. The Vice Chancellor, University Of Madras
Case No: W.P.No.36249 of 2024
The Madras High Court has asked Senior Advocate AK Sriram to investigate the veracity of a student's claim that the Madras University had conducted an examination for the History of Communication subject on May 11, 2024.
Justice N Mala asked the Senior Advocate to enquire into the veracity of the contention made by the Student regarding the conduct of the examination. The court also gave liberty to the Senior Advocate to call for WhatsApp messages and records of the University and asked the University to cooperate in the enquiry by submitting the materials as called for.
Case title: Play Games 24x7 Private Limited And Anr Vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors & Connected Matters
Case No: WP 6784 of 2025
While opposing a plea online by gaming companies against State government's regulations on online gaming, the Tamil Nadu government told the Madras High Court on Friday (April 4) that the State has a parental right over its people and was duty bound to take care of the health of its people.
It further submitted that most of the players were teenagers between 14-16 years and hence it wanted to protect this vulnerable class of people.
The government was making submissions before the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar in the plea challenging the Government's night ban and mandatory KYC verification on online gaming companies brought in through the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act 2022 along with the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations 2025.