Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 183 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 222 NOMINAL INDEX S. Aslam v. The Director, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Youth Development, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 183 Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association v. The Government of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 184 Play Games 24x7 Private Limited And Anr Vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors & Connected Matters, 2025...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 183 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
NOMINAL INDEX
S. Aslam v. The Director, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Youth Development, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association v. The Government of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
Play Games 24x7 Private Limited And Anr Vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors & Connected Matters, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
Paraman vs. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
V Gopi v The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
MA v Superintendent of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
V Balakrishnan v. The General Manager (T) and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
K Kannan v. The Managing Director and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
S. Sai Priya and others v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
Lyca Productions Private Limited v Vishal Krishna Reddy, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The Director, CBI, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
V Easwaran v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
G Devarajan V The Special Tahsildar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
Karthik Parthiban v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
H Santhosh v The District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
Anshul Mishra IAS v R Lalithambal and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
The Tahsildar v. T Elumalai, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
Google India Pvt Ltd and Another v. Testbook Edu Solutions Private Limited and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
Jaganmoorthy v Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
Muruganandam and Another v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
Vetri Maaran v. The Chairman, CBFC and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
R Jim v. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
Madurai Multi Functional Complex Private Limited v. the Madurai Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
The Executive Secretary of District and Others v. K.S Subha Karuthukhan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
Akash Baskaran v. The Joint Director, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
Sakthivel Ganesan v. Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
J Revathy v The Government of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
M Arasupandi v. The Commissioner of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
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
Dr. E. Krithikaa v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
XXX v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
REPORTS
Case Title: S. Aslam v. The Director, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Youth Development
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
The Madras High Court has stayed the rustication of a 2nd year MSW student for allegedly painting “Jai Bhim and Free Palestine” graffiti in the hostel wall of Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Youth development.
Justice TV Tamilselvi stayed the rustication considering that the student was at the fag end of his career and if he was not permitted to attend exams and internship, it would cause him too much hardship. The court therefore directed the college to reschedule his exam, issue hall ticket and permit him to attend the block placement programme in social service department.
Case Title: Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association v. The Government of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
The Madras High Court has recently observed that conferring pageant titles such as “Mr. India”, would not be violative of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy said that conferring such title to the winner of a body building competition would not in any manner mean that it is a use of the national emblem or the name of the country for trade, business etc and is merely used to refer to the title winner. Noting that the sport is only aimed at encouraging physical health, the court found no violation of the law.
Madras High Court Upholds Night Ban, Mandatory KYC For Online Real Money Games
Case title: Play Games 24x7 Private Limited And Anr Vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors & Connected Matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
The Madras High Court on Tuesday upheld the regulations brought in by the Tamil Nadu government imposing a night ban and mandating Aadhar-based KYC verification for playing online real money games.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar dismissed the petitions filed by a group of online gaming companies and players. The bench said that apart from a paternalistic point, the State had gone one step further to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, which was a reasonable restriction.
Though the companies had argued on the aspect of Right to privacy, the court has rejected the arguments and said that the Right to privacy comes with it its own restriction.
Case title: Paraman vs. State
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
In an extraordinary ruling, the Madras High Court recently upheld the conviction of a man found guilty of raping a woman under coercion, while directing the prison authorities to extract labour from the appellant-convict during his jail term.
The Court further ordered that the wages earned by him be equally distributed between the child born through the victim (rape survivor) and another child born through his wife.
In its order, a bench of Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the Court was compelled to grant this extraordinary relief "with a heavy heart," in an attempt to "wipe out the tears" of the victim and the innocent children affected by the crime.
Chennai Honour Killing Case: Madras High Court Rejects Plea For CBI Probe
Case Title: V Gopi v The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking CBI probe into the alleged honour killing of a man in Chennai in 2024.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea filed by V Gopi, father of the deceased Praveen. The court thus refused to transfer the pending investigation to the CBI.
Praveen was allegedly killed by his wife's family members who were unhappy with the marriage. Praveen belonged to the Scheduled Caste (SC) Adi Dravidar community while his wife belonged to the Most Backward Class (MBC) community.
Gopi contended that on February 24, 2024, his son was forcefully taken to a parking lot in Pallikaranai where the accused came with deadly weapons, assaulted and slaughtered Praveen who subsequently died. In his plea for CBI probe, Gopi submitted that the girl's family had conspired to murder his son with the help of his friends and relatives. It was submitted that the girl's father was a functionary of the ruling DMK party and was engaged in political and other communal activities.
Case Title: MA v Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
The Madras High Court recently observed that the concept of “family” has to be understood expansively and marriage is not the sole mode to start a family.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan observed that while the judgment of the Supreme Court in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs Union of India might not have legalised same sex marriage, such couples could very well form a family.
The bench also expressed discomfort in associating the word “queer” with homosexual persons. The court said that the sexual orientation of a homosexual person must be perfectly normal for him/her/them and wondered why it should be associated with the word “queer” which, by definition, meant “strange or odd”.
NHAI Can't Collect Toll From Users Without Maintaining Highway Properly: Madras High Court
Case Title: V Balakrishnan v. The General Manager (T) and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
In a solace for road users, the Madras High Court has underscored that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has an obligation to maintain highways properly pursuant to which they can collect toll fee on such users.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete thus halted the collection of toll in the Madurai-Tuticorin highway, till the roads are properly maintained by the authority as per the standards prescribed under the National Highways Authority of India Act.
Case Title: K Kannan v. The Managing Director and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
Ordering the closure of a TASMAC shop situated on a public road, the Madras High Court recently observed that a welfare government should strive to enforce prohibition rather than establishing more TASMAC shops, which affects the public health.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete added that it was contradictory for a welfare state to establish more hospitals on the one hand and simultaneously establish TASMAC shops on the other. The court also added that when right to health was a fundamental right, the State should ensure that prohibition is implemented slowly to reduce the harm to public health.
Case Title: S. Sai Priya and others v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition filled by students seeking re-examination of NEET UG examinations
Justice C Kumarappan dismissed the petition after taking note of the report filed by the National Testing Agency. The court added that unless malafide was shown in NTA's report, allowing a plea for re-examination would affect the level playing field of around 2 million students who wrote the exam all over India.
The court considered the report filed by NTA after a field verification conducted by the Centre Superintendent, City Coordinator, NTA-appointed Observers and Invigilators on duty in the examination halls.
Finding no malafide in the report, the court rejected the plea for re-examination and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Lyca Productions Private Limited v Vishal Krishna Reddy
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
The Madras High Court has directed Actor Vishal to pay Rs. 30 Crore due to entertainment company Lyca Productions.
Decreeing a suit filed by Lyca, Justice PT Asha also remarked that Vishal's conduct had been evasive from the beginning of the suit. Thus, the court noted that it was a case where cost could be imposed on Vishal.
Case Title: A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The Director, CBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
The Madras High Court has disposed the plea filed by Youtuber Savukku Shankar seeking a CBI probe into the alleged misappropriation of funds in connection with the implementation of the Annal Ambedkar Scheme. Though the court has refused to order a CBI probe, the court has directed the authorities to recheck the list of tender awardees and ensure that only those who fulfill the criteria have been awarded contracts under the scheme.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan reserved the plea for orders during vacation court in May after taking note of an undertaking given by the President of the Dalit Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industries (DICCI) assuring the court that all the beneficiaries identified under the scheme will be made part of Gen Green Logistics, thus ensuring that they get shares and benefits under the Scheme.
The court has directed the authorities to verify the list following the principles of natural justice and delete persons who do not fulfill the requisite criteria. The court added that the outcome of the exercise must be informed to Shankar, who had alleged that even advocates had been made beneficiaries under the scheme.
Case Title: V Easwaran v. Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
Observing that the funds payable by the Central Government to the States under the Right to Education Act need not be linked to the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP), the Madras High Court urged the Centre to consider releasing the Samagra Shiksha Scheme funds payable to the Tamil Nadu government.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan was disposing of a petition seeking directions to the State to initiate the admission process under the Right to Education Act, 2009 for the academic year 2025-2026 immediately. The bench had reserved the orders in the petition during its vacation sitting.
The court also noted that since the State Government has filed a suit in the Supreme Court against the withholding of funds, it could not issue any binding directions. The court thus urged the central government to consider delinking the RTE component.
Case Title: G Devarajan V The Special Tahsildar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
The Madras High Court has asked the committee, constituted by the Government, to initiate action against theatre owners who overprice the tickets for customers. The court has also asked the committee to ensure that the excess amount collected by the theatres are refunded to the customers.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that when the government itself had fixed rates, which was being revised from time to time, the theatre owners could not fleece the movie-goers by charging excess amount from them.
Considering the submission made by the state and noting that the committee has been taking care of excess fee collection, the court disposed the plea and asked the committee to act against the theatre owners.
Case Title: Karthik Parthiban v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a foreign national cannot be forced to stay in India indefinitely in connection with a criminal case when he is not even named as an accused in the case.
The court thus directed the investigating agencies to complete the probe against a Seychelles citizen within a year and to revoke the look out circular issued against him, if no case was established.
Noting that the investigation cannot remain pending indefinitely, the court directed the CBI to complete the investigation within an year and to revoke the look out circular, if no case was established against the petitioner. The court added that if a case was established against the petitioner, he would have to face trial and thus there would be a justification in keeping the look out circular pending.
Case Title: H Santhosh v The District Collector
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
The Madras High Court recently directed the Government to pass necessary Government Orders empowering revenue authorities to issue a "No Caste No Religion: certificate.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar lauded the intent of a father to get a government certificate stating that he and family did not belong to any religion or caste. The court added that such an object would help in prohibiting caste-based discrimination and would be an eye-opener for citizens.
The court was hearing an appeal against a single judge order which had dismissed the father's petition stating that revenue authorities were not empowered to issue "no caste no religion certificate". The division bench however observed that the single judge was misguided with the objections put forth by the Government Pleader and had not considered the object of Article 25 of the Constitution. The court added that as per Article 25, the state had a constitutional obligation to implement the object of Article 25 and recognize the freedom of conscience of an individual to choose their own religious beliefs.
Madras High Court Suspends One-Month Imprisonment Imposed On IAS Officer In Contempt Case
Case Title: Anshul Mishra IAS v R Lalithambal and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
The Madras High Court has suspended the sentence of one-month imprisonment imposed on IAS officer Anshul Mishra for “civil contempt” by failing to follow an earlier order of the court in a land case.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan suspended the sentence imposed by the judge. The court was hearing an appeal preferred by the IAS officer seeking to set aside the order of the single judge.
On April 28, Justice P Velmurugan had found the IAS officer guilty of the offence under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced him. The judge had asked the officer to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the petitioners (an elderly duo) from his personal salary and directed the Government to deduct the compensation from his salary. The sentence was suspended, allowing the officer to go for appeal.
Case Title: The Tahsildar v. T Elumalai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
The Madras High Court has clarified that no person can claim ownership of a grama natham land (village house sites) by occupation and such lands were meant to be allotted to the landless poor or used for public purpose.
In doing so, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar took a view different from that taken by a single judge holding that when an occupation of natham land is accepted by the State, it would become private property and there would be no encroachment.
The bench observed that if title on the natham land was to be conferred on mere occupation of a person, some greedy individuals would alone occupy the lands illegally for their unjust gains. The court emphasised that natham lands were meant for dwelling and should be allotted to the poor or used for public purpose.
Case Title: Google India Pvt Ltd and Another v. Testbook Edu Solutions Private Limited and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
The Madras High Court has dismissed an application filed by Google India Private Limited and Google India Digital Services Private Limited to reject a plaint filed by Testbook Edu Solutions Private Limited challenging Google's new billing policy.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that Testbook's plaint was different from the earlier plaints filed by other startups on the same issue, which were rejected by the High Court. The court noted that the arguments raised by Testbook were not just related to the superior bargaining position of Google but also with respect to the bilateral contracts between the parties.
The court thus noted that such in personam disputes could not be adjudicated by the Competition Commission of India, which was empowered only to examine whether an enterprise had abused its dominant position and not whether the contract was violative.
Case Title: Jaganmoorthy v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
The Madras High Court has ordered the Tamil Nadu police to arrest Additional Director General of Police HM Jayaram to investigate his alleged involvement in an abduction case. The judge has also asked KV Kuppam MLA "Poovai" Jagan Moorthy to cooperate with the investigating authorities.
Justice P Velmurugan directed the police to take action against the ADGP as per law. The court added that being a public servant, Jayaram was answerable to the public. The judge added that a strong message should go out to the public that no one was above law.
Case Title: Muruganandam and Another v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
The Madras High Court recently criticised the Tamil Nadu police for trying to suppress dissent by registering criminal cases against individuals who were peacefully protesting against issues that affected public health and social welfare.
The court thus quashed criminal proceedings against individuals who had participated in protests against the functioning of a TASMAC outlet in a populated area.
Justice P Velmurugan also remarked that if criminal cases were registered against every citizen who participates in peaceful protests, it would amount to criminalisation of democratic expression. The court thus added that the case showed how the criminal justice system was being wrongly used against people who were working for the welfare of the community.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
While granting divorce to a husband, the Madras High Court recently observed that making unsubstantiated sexual allegations against husband and father-in-law amounts to defamation which in turn constitutes mental cruelty.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Sakthivel held as under,
“As elaborated above, the unestablished sexual allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner and his father, amounts to cruelty and thus, the petitioner has made out a case under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of H.M. Act. Points for consideration arising in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are answered accordingly. The petitioner is thus entitled to a Decree of divorce,” the court said.
The court thus noted that though the wife was willing to resume the marital life, considering the mental cruelty that was inflicted by her upon the husband, the husband's unwillingness to reunite was justified. Noting that the parties could not reach a consensus even during mediation, the court was inclined to allow the husband's appeal and dissolve the marriage.
Case Title: Vetri Maaran v. The Chairman, CBFC and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
The Madras High Court on Tuesday disposed of a plea filed by director Vetri Maaran challenging the CBFC's refusal to certify the upcoming Tamil movie “Manushi”, produced by Maaran, without specifying the objectionable content.
The CBFC informed Justice N Anand Venkatesh that as per the previous order of the court, the reviewing board had watched the movie again and had provided the details of the portions/dialogues/scenes from the movie, to which it had objections. The Board also informed the court that it was willing to consider certifying the movie, if it is submitted afresh, after removing the objectionable content.
At the same time, Advocate Subash, appearing for Vetri Maaran, informed the court that he had objections with respect to the objectionable portions of the film, pointed out by the board. Since such objections could not be gone into in the present plea, the court gave liberty to Maaran to challenge the same in the manner known to law.
Case Title: R Jim v. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
The Madras High Court recently criticised the frequent boycott of courts by lawyer bodies over “flimsy” grounds or based on certain individual grievances. The court said that such practice must not be appreciated. The court observed that in case of grievances, the lawyers should approach the Bar Council or competent authorities and not resort to a boycott unnecessarily.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete noted that the Supreme Court has also deprecated frequent court boycott by lawyers and had reiterated that the lawyers should resolve their grievances by approaching competent authorities. The bench observed that lawyers were stakeholders in the justice delivery system and their absence would affect court proceedings. The court also added that boycott by lawyers was a concern to judiciary and in such cases, the court would not be in a position to dispose of the cases.
Case Title: Madurai Multi Functional Complex Private Limited v. the Madurai Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
The Madras High Court recently observed that the property belonging to the Union will be exempt from any tax imposed by the State as per Article 285(1) of the Constitution, even if it is put to commercial use.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice M Jothiraman noted that Article 285 of the Constitution did not specify the kind of property that was exempt, and thus, the expression would have to be understood in an absolute sense. The court thus observed that property would mean any property, whether vacant or constructed or used for public interest or for commercial purposes. The court thus highlighted that all kinds of property belonging to the Union Government would take shelter within the Article, which stood like an Iron dome.
Case Title: The Executive Secretary of District and Others v. K.S Subha Karuthukhan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
The Madras High Court recently observed that a matrimonial dispute was treated as a misconduct under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973, and the Government departments were empowered to initiate action such misconduct.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete noted that a public servant was expected to maintain honesty, integrity and good conduct not just inside the office but outside as well. Thus, the bench held that even if a misconduct was committed in a matrimonial relationship, the department could initiate disciplinary proceedings.
Case Title: Akash Baskaran v. The Joint Director
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
The Madras High Court has stayed all proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against film producer Akash Bhaskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran. The court also directed ED to return all materials seized from the petitioners.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayan held that the authorisation based on which the ED had conducted searches at the offices and residences of the petitioners was prima facie without jurisdiction since there was no incriminating material against them. The court also observed that the materials produced by the ED had no semblance of any information based on which the ED had decided to take action against the petitioners.
Case Title: Sakthivel Ganesan v. Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
The Madras High Court has informed the Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai that it will take stringent action by way of suo motu contempt proceedings against the police department if it is found that the name of victims in sexual offence cases is revealed in the FIRs.
Justice P Velmurugan asked the DGP and the Commissioner to give instructions to all investigating officers that in case of certain offences, the identity of the victim/child should not be revealed as enunciated under law and through the directions of the Supreme Court.
The court noted that as per the directions of the Supreme Court, the indemnity of victims of rape and sexual offences should not be revealed in any form. The court however noted that some investigating officers were not following these directions nor the law which prohibited the same.
Wife Doesn't Need Husband's Permission To Apply For Passport: Madras High Court
Case Title: J Revathy v The Government of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
The Madras High Court has made it clear that is not necessary for a wife to get her husband's permission and his signature while applying for a passport. The court added that such a practice does not augur well for a society that is moving towards women's emancipation and was a kind of male supremacism.
Expressing shock at the authority's insistence, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that insistence by the Passport Authorities showed the mindset of the society, which treated women like a chattel and as belonging to the husband after marriage. The court added that the woman does not lose her individuality after marriage and can always apply for a passport without the permission or signature of her husband.
Case Title: M Arasupandi v. The Commissioner of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
The Madras High Court recently modified a condition imposed in the conduct of the Murugan Conference of Madurai, mandating that all vehicles coming for the conference obtain a pass to enter Madurai.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice K Rajasekar held that the Assistant Commissioner could not have passed such a blanket prohibitory order as the officer did not have control over the entire city. The court also noted that there was no strong reason to interfere with the fundamental right of the citizens.
The court further noted that in the present case, nothing had been shown by the officials in support of the conditions. The court added that the authorities had failed to specify the problems anticipated by them for imposing the conditions. The court also noted that in a republican democracy like ours, the ease of participation in democratic gatherings is equally vital.
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.
Case Title: Dr.E.Krithikaa v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
The Madras High Court has ruled that maternity leave availed by a doctor while rendering mandatory service at Government Hospital should be counted towards their bond period.
The bench of GR Swaminathan and Justice K Rajasekar noted that maternity leave is integral to maternity benefit and forms part of Article 21. The court thus held that the doctor, though was not in the service of the government as a regular employee, would be entitled to the same treatment as any government employee.
Case Title: XXX v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Madras High Court recently ordered a re-investigation in a POCSO case after noting that the police had failed to conduct further investigation when the DNA test of the accused gave a negative result. The court said that a further investigation was crucial to find the actual culprit in the case.
Justice K Murali Shankar said that POCSO offences are serious in nature stressing that it was high time for the prosecution to ensure a proper investigation.