Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 01 - September 07, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX

Raja Mathan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (292)

S. Vijay v. The Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 293

Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamilnadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 294

Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. The Secretary and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 295

K.J. Vinod v. Registrar, NCLT & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 296

Edappadi K Palanisamy v. S Suriyamoorthy and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 297

REPORT

'Understand Constitutional Values': Madras HC Asks Hindu Munnani Workers To Write Preamble 10 Times For Pre-Arrest Bail In Hate Speech Case

Case Title: Raja Mathan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (292)

The Madras High Court has recently granted anticipatory bail to Hindu Munnani workers in an alleged hate speech case.

Interestingly, the bail has been granted on the condition that the accused write the preamble of the Constitution, along with Article 19 (Freedom of Speech), Part IV-A, Article 51A which pertain to fundamental duties 10 times either in Tamil or Hindi and submit it before the Magistrate court.

Justice M. Jothiraman imposed the condition to make the accused understand the object and constitutional valued enumerated in the Constitution.

Madras High Court Constitutes Commission Led By Retd Judge To Probe Allegations Of Police Violence Against Detained Lawyers

Case Title: S. Vijay v. The Commissioner of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 293

The Madras High Court on Tuesday (September 2) constituted 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 Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan asked the Legal Services Authority to provide assistance to the commission. The commission has been directed to probe into the allegations levelled by both parties and submit a report by the next date of hearing.

The lawyers and law students had alleged that the police had used excessive force while detaining them. The state, on the other hand, had argued that the protestors had caused damage to public and private property.

People's Mindset Must Change To Eradicate Caste Discrimination In Using Public Resources: Madras High Court

Case Title; Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamilnadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 294

The Madras High Court recently remarked that there should be a change in the mindset of the people so that there is no discrimination between communities in sharing public resources.

'In addition to the directions already given, it is suggested to all the stakeholders that there should be a change of mindset in the people in order to ensure that there is no discrimination arises between different communities of people in the sharing of public resources and in the use of public facilities,' the court said.

Justice RN Manjula appreciated the government's efforts to address the issues of discrimination in using public resources. Previously, the court had expressed shock over members of the Scheduled Caste community being made to wait for their turn till members from the other community fetch water from the common tap.

No Statutory Bar In Recognising More Than One Association: High Court Asks TN Bar Council To Consider Plea Of Nilgiris Women Lawyers Body

Case Title: Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. The Secretary and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 295

The Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to reconsider an application filed by the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris for recognition.

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan held that the Bar Council's view, that only one association could be recognised in a district, was misconceived and contrary to the Welfare Fund Rules, which specifically provided that the Bar Council could recognise more than one Bar Association. The court also added that the rules did not prohibit recognising more than one bar association.

The court thus opined that the Bar Council's decision was not based on any intelligible differentia and was violative of Rule 3(4) of the Welfare Fund Rules.

The Women Lawyers Association had approached the court after the Bar Council rejected their application under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act 1987 seeking recognition and registration of the association.

Absence Of Disciplinary Proceedings Bars NCLT From Rejecting Proposed IRP Under IBC: Madras High Court

Case Name: K.J. Vinod v. Registrar, NCLT & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 296

The Division Bench of Madras High Court, comprising Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Mr. Justice N. Senthilkumar, has held that in the absence of disciplinary proceedings pending against the professional, NCLT is bound to appoint the IRP proposed by the applicant under sections 7 and 10 of the IBC, 2016.

Court Can Take Note Of Subsequent Events To Reject Plaint: Madras High Court Rejects Plea Against AIADMK Leadership

Case Title: Edappadi K Palanisamy v. S Suriyamoorthy and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 297

The Madras High Court has recently allowed a civil revision petition filed by AIADMK head Edappadi Palanisamy against the dismissal of an application filed by him to reject a plaint filed by one Suriyamoorthy against the AIADMK leadership.

Justice PB Balaji noted that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, there was no embargo on the courts taking note of subsequent events to reject a plaint. In the present case, the court noted that the plaintiff had contested against the AIADMK candidate in the assembly elections which showed that he no longer treated himself as a member of the AIADMK party.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Is Governor Bound By Advice Of Council Of Ministers In Matters Of Remission & Premature Release? Madras High Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case Title: Eswaran and others v. The State

Case No: W.P.Nos.31478 of 2024, 107, 127, 267, 777, 2208, 13778 & 19566 of 2025

The Madras High Court has referred to the larger bench the issue of whether the governor is bound by the decision of the Council of Ministers in matters pertaining to remission and premature release, and if so, what are the circumstances in which the governor could exercise discretion and take a different view from that of the Council of Ministers.

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan has directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench. The bench thought it fit to refer the matter to the larger bench after coming across two differing opinions of coordinate benches on the issue.