Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 309 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 316 NOMINAL INDEX Sarootham Padmanabhan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 309 T Devanathan v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 310 Suo Motu WP v. The Director General of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 311 P Ayyakannu v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 312 Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 309 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
NOMINAL INDEX
Sarootham Padmanabhan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
T Devanathan v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
Suo Motu WP v. The Director General of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
P Ayyakannu v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
R Sathish v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
A. Kasthuri v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
Ulpath Nisha v. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
REPORT
Case Title: Sarootham Padmanabhan v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
The Madras High Court has upheld the findings of a Supreme Court-appointed committee, declaring as null and void the land bought by the resort owners in the Segur plateau, in the Western Ghats area that had been declared as an Elephant corridor.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy agreed with most of the findings of the committee except that the land that was purchased subsequent to the declaration of the elephant corridor be handed over to the Government.
Case Title: T Devanathan v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
The Madras High Court has granted interim bail to financier Devanathan Yadav till October 30 in the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund case wherein he had been accused of swindling funds to the tune of Rs. 619 crores.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that keeping the accused in jail for long would not yield any benefits
The court thus directed Yadav to be released on interim bail till 30th October and asked him to mobilise a sum of Rs. 100 Crore, to be deposited before the court dealing with cases under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act.
Case Title: Suo Motu WP v. The Director General of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday, closed the suo motu case initiated against former Tamil Nadu Minister K Ponmudi for his remarks against Vaishnavism, Saivism, and women. The court noted that the complainants were at liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional magistrates against the closure of complaints.
While closing the suo motu case, Justice N Satish Kumar orally remarked that Ponmudi, while holding the public office, should not have made such comments which would hurt the sentiments of persons.
"If an ordinary person had uttered this, we could've avoided it. But a person in responsibility should not have uttered this. He should've asked for some advice before making such statements...It's not good for persons at the helm of affairs to speak like this. Everybody has rights under the Constitution. Sentiments should not be hurt like this," the court orally remarked.
The court also expressed displeasure in the manner in which the police had closed the complaints and filed their report before the Magistrate's court. The court orally remarked that instead of following their political bosses, the investigating officers should have conducted a proper inquiry.
Case Title: P Ayyakannu v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
The Madras High Court recently held that the railway authorities cannot de-board a passenger holding a valid ticket merely because his travel was for conducting a protest.
Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that, as per the Railways Act 1989, a person could be de-boarded only in limited circumstances like travelling without a ticket, having an infectious disease, or travelling in unauthorised parts. The court added that if a person with a valid ticket was de-boarded for other reasons, it would amount to an offence for which action could be taken against the officials.
Case Title: Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
The Madras High Court has come down heavily on the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police in Karur District of Tamil Nadu for failing to prevent caste discrimination in two temples there.
Justice B. Pugalendhi emphasised that equality for all in temple worship is non-negotiable and that the officers in charge are expected to ensure that the temple is remained open for all devotees, including persons belonging to the scheduled caste community.
The bench observed that the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police of Karur had not shown neutrality but had in fact displayed an utter abdication of their constitutional responsibility. The court said that instead of defending rights, the officers had defended violations and had shown that they were unfit to discharge their official duties.
Case Title: R Sathish v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by a man against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti, refusing to register a complaint against a woman, who had allegedly blackmailed the man and fraudulently taken money from him.
Finding no merit in the plea, Justice Shamim Ahmed said that the plea was only a calculated attempt to defame a woman. The court added that entertaining such petitions could cause irreparable harm to the reputation of the woman. The court said that it would not allow such misuse of legal process and wanted to protect the dignity and reputation of the woman.
Case Title: A. Kasthuri v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
The Madras High Court has directed the authorities of Stanley Medical College to give appropriate treatment for renal transplantation to a minor boy without insisting on the consent of his father, who had abandoned the family.
Justice M Dhandapani took note of the submissions of the hospital's counsel, who informed the court that it would conduct a meeting and take an appropriate decision in this regard.
Case Title: Ulpath Nisha v. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
The Madras High Court has observed that the jurisdictional Jamath is obliged to issue a No-Objection Certificate to an applicant for conducting Nikha, if the applicant is not otherwise disqualified.
Justice GR Swaminathan held that the non-issuance of an NOC to an eligible applicant would violate the applicant's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that, as per the Islamic tradition, an NOC had to be obtained by the jurisdictional Jamath for the solemnisation of the Nikkah. Thus, the court said that when the custom stood thus, the Jamath had a duty to issue NOC unless the applicant was otherwise disqualified.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Making Two Additional Judges Of Madras High Court Permanent
The Supreme Court collegium has recommended the appointment of Justice N Senthilkumar and Justice G Arul Murugan, Additional Judges of Madras High Court as permanent judges of the Madras High Court.
Case Title: Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The Election Commission of India
Case No: WP No. 34815 of 2025
The Madras High Court has directed the Election Commission of India to respond to a plea seeking to ensure that all polling stations are accessible to persons with disabilities and all information provided through the websites of the ECI is also accessible to persons with disabilities.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the ECI to file its counter within 4 weeks. The court orally remarked that since the polling booths were under the control of the ECI, they had a duty to ensure that it was accessible to all. The court also asked the ECI to take the issue and not merely consider it as a publicity petition.
The court also asked the ECI to ensure that physical accessibility, information accessibility, and transportation accessibility are provided to persons with disabilities. Asking ECI to respond, the court said that it would pass orders in the case, ensuring that the guidelines already put in place by the ECI were effectively implemented.
Case Title: Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited v Joy Crizildaa
Case No: OA 904 of 2025 and CS (Comm Div) 231 of 2025
Madhampatty Pakashala, a company involved in catering services has approached the Madras High Court against celebrity stylist Joy Crizilda, alleging that the latter has been making social media posts disparaging the goodwill and reputation of the company.
Justice N Senthilkumar has adjourned the case to September 24 after noting that the CEO of the company has also filed a suit for personality rights. The court decided to take up both cases together since it dealt with the same issues.
Case Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. The Director General of Police
Case No: WP Crl 884 of 2025
The Madras High Court has suggested the Tamil Nadu police to frame rules that could be followed while granting permissions for political parties to conduct their public meetings.
Wondering how compensation could be collected in case of damage to public property during these meetings, Justice N Satish Kumar also suggested that a condition could be imposed asking the parties to deposit a fixed sum, which could be utilised for compensation in case of damage to public property.
The suggestions were made during the hearing of a petition filed by Actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam party seeking directions to the Director General of Police to instruct all his subordinate officers to grant permissions for conducting political campaigns by the party, considering their representations in a fair, uniform, and non-discriminatory manner within a time frame fixed by the court.
Case Title: M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd and another v. The Director General of Police and others
Case No: Crl. O.P No. 2302 of 2021 and Crl O.P 4174 of 2021
The Madras High Court has ordered registration of 467 FIRs based on complaints given to police stations in connection with a large-scale scam involving the filing of vexatious motor accident claim petitions before the courts in the State.
Justice Anand Venkatesh directed that the FIRs be transferred to the SIT that was set up by the court in 2021 and the process be completed within a period of four weeks.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited in 2021, seeking the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) in order to investigate the complaints given by the Insurance Company, which pertained to nearly 120 claims made through fake and fabricated insurance policies.
In February 2021, the court had directed the Director General of Police to form an SIT to deal with the issue, noting that it was necessary since the fake claims had wide ramifications and there was a huge network behind the same.
Case Title: The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Case No: WA 2717 of 2025
The Madras High Court, on Thursday, asked the Income Tax Department not to pass any further orders regarding the centralisation of accounts of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Party, and the DMK Charitable Trust, till an appeal in connection with the case was disposed of by the High Court.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan was hearing an appeal preferred by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Others against an order of the single judge in which the single judge had quashed the orders and notifications of the department whereby the accounts of DMK and DMK Charitable Trust were transferred from the Jurisdictional Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
The court has issued notice to the party in the department's appeal and has adjourned the case to October 28, 2025.
Case Title: K Jothi and Others v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Case No: WP 34503 of 2025 and HCP 1599/2025
The Madras High Court has rejected a plea filed by the commissioner of police for vacating an interim order of the court constituting a one-man commission headed by retired high court judge Justice V Parthiban to probe into allegations of police violence during the detention of lawyers and law students who took part in the protest organised by the sanitation workers of Greater Chennai Corporation.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan refused to extend an interim order of another division bench, which had kept inabeyance the interim order. The court said that the commission could proceed with the enquiry, and any materials that the state had could be placed before the commission.
When the Additional Advocate General requested that the commission be manned by a retired judge from outside the state and not Justice V Parthiban as per the order of the court, the bench took exception to the request and said that the appointments made by the court should not be questioned without any material.
Case Title: P Deepa v. The Collector
Case No: W.P.No.34912 of 2025 etc
The Madras High Court recently questioned the Erode District Collector on how scheduled caste certificates were issued to persons belonging to the Malayali community and residing in Erode District of Tamil Nadu.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that any inclusion or exclusion in the Scheduled Tribe list of a State can be done only by way of a parliamentary enactment under Article 342 of the Constitution. The court thus observed that the State's recommendation, without any legislative exercise could not be the basis for seeking a community certificate.
Case Title: The Secretary, SRP Middle School v. The Director Of Elementary Education
Case No: WP(MD) NO. 20585 of 2017
While hearing a plea in connection with the appointment of physical education teachers, the Madras High Court recently remarked that children today were becoming couch potatoes and playing online games, which were affecting not just their physical health but also their mental health.
Justice PT Asha highlighted that an active body was important for an active mind and stressed that physical education was crucial for the overall development of the child.
The court was hearing a plea challenging the staff fixation made by the Elementary Educational Officer for 2013-14 and in 2016-17, rendering the post of physical education teacher as surplus and denying permission to fill up the post in the school. The court was informed that the state had imposed a cap on engaging physical education teachers in schools. It was submitted that only if there was a minimum of 250 students in a school, the post of physical education teacher would be sanctioned.