Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 24 - March 2, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX

ST Sivagnanan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 69

Tvl. Chennais Pet v. The State Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 70

Y Babu v The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 71

Poongundran and Others v. The State and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 72

ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 73

S Gunasekar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 74

Prof. Dr. M. Srinivasan v. The Chancellor of Universities and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 75

TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 76

M/s.United Breweries Limited v. The Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals II), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 77

Rajesh Anouar Mahimaidoss v Election Commission of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 78

Rashtriya Sanadhana Seva Sangam v. Regional Officer, CBFC, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 79

Vendaraja v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 80

REPORT

Madras High Court Paves Way For Shivaratri Celebration At Isha Foundation, Dismisses Plea Alleging Violation Of Pollution Norms

Case Title: ST Sivagnanan v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 69

The Madras High Court, on Monday, dismissed a plea seeking directions to the authorities to desist from issuing permission to conduct Maha Shivaratri celebrations at Isha Foundation in light of violations of pollution norms in previous celebrations. By doing so, the bench also allowed Isha to go ahead with its Mahasivarathri celebrations.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar took on record the affidavit filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board informing the court that Isha Foundation was well-equipped to deal with any solid, liquid or noise pollution that may arise during the Mahasivarathri festival in its Coimbatore premises on 26th and 27th of February 2025. The bench, noting that there was no reason to raise apprehensions, dismissed the plea.

Appeal Can't Be Dismissed Due To Procedural Delay When Assessee Has Complied With Statutory Requirements Including Pre-Deposit: Madras HC

Case Title: Tvl. Chennais Pet v. The State Tax Officer

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 70

The Madras High Court stated that appeal can't be dismissed due to procedural delay, when assessee has complied statutory requirements including pre-deposit.

“The appeal should not be dismissed merely due to a procedural delay, especially when the petitioner has made an effort to comply with the statutory requirements, including the pre-deposit of 10% of the tax liability and additional payments towards the disputed tax amount” stated the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh.

Should Subsequent Bail Pleas Be Listed Before Roster Judge Even If Judge Who Heard Earlier Plea Is Present? Madras HC Refers To Larger Bench

Case Title: Y Babu v The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 71

The Madras High Court has referred to a larger bench the issue on whether subsequent bail applications filed by an accused should be listed before the roster bench even if the judge who had dealt with an earlier bail/anticipatory bail petition is available.

Justice Sunder Mohan referred the question to the larger bench after noting the Supreme Court's clarification in Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha v. The Registrar General which the high court said had held that where the roster system is followed in many High Courts, the applications filed by the accused in the same FIR would have to be placed only before the roster Judge.

Justice Mohan was of the opinion that the Supreme Court's decision in the case was only a clarification with respect to the listing of bail applications filed by the accused in the same FIR and not with regard to the subsequent bail applications filed by the same accused.

Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Dravidar Kazhagam Members For Protesting Against Hindi Imposition In 2022

Case Title: Poongundran and Others v. The State and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 72

The Madras High Court has quashed a case against members of the Dravidar Kazhagam for protesting against Hindi imposition in Egmore in 2022.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan quashed the FIR filed against Vice President Poongundran, General Secretary Anburaj, and Treasurer Kumaresan. They were booked by the Egmore Police for offences under Section 143(Punishment for member of unlawful assembly), 188(Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the IPC read with Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act for unlawful assembly and for disobeying the order promulgated by a public servant.

Alleged Adulterer Should Be Given Opportunity To Disprove Adultery Claim In Divorce Case: Madras High Court

Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 73

The Madras High Court has recently held that when divorce is sought on the grounds of adultery, the alleged adulterer should be made a co-respondent if the details are known. The court also observed that if the details of the alleged adulterer is not known, the petitioner could be excused from the requirement of impleading the alleged adulterer.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima observed that in Indian culture, being branded as an adulterer was not a badge of honor and the alleged adulterer should be given an opportunity to disprove the allegations made against him/her. The court added that if an opportunity was not given, the person would be condemned behind his back.

The court also noted that giving an opportunity to the alleged adulterer would discourage one from making reckless allegations as one would think twice before putting forth baseless allegations.

Judicial Officer Bound To Obey Circulars/Orders Issued By High Court: Madras HC Upholds Compulsory Retirement Of District Judge

Case Title: S Gunasekar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 74

The Madras High Court recently upheld the compulsory retirement of a District Judge noting that the Administrative Committee of the High Court had assessed the materials and concluded that his continued service was not in the public interest.

The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that unless the material relied on by the administrative committee is shown to be irrelevant, tainted or with malice, the court could not interfere with the same.

The court observed that as a judicial officer, Gunasekar was bound to obey the circulars and the orders of the High Court. The court also observed that Gunasekar could not contend that he should be treated on par with other Government servants. The court also noted that to secure higher degree of probity and integrity, the High Court thought it fit to require judicial officers to provide information about the acquisition of assets by their family members even though it is out of their own funds.

HoD's Post Can't Be Claimed As An Absolute Right: Madras HC Upholds State University's Amended Statute For Appointments On Rotational Basis

Case Title: Prof. Dr. M. Srinivasan v. The Chancellor of Universities and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 75

The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with an amendment made to Statute 25, Chapter IX, Volume 1, University Calendar 2016 of the Madras University through which the University decided to appoint Head of Departments on a rotational basis based on performance and merit of the professors of concerned departments.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar noted that the position was given as a designation and not a promotion to supervise the particular department. The bench added that the position did not alter the service conditions and thus could not be claimed as an absolute right by the professors.

The bench also noted that the headship was provided to represent, regulate, and monitor the activities in the department and was not a promotion. The court emphasized that even promotions could not be claimed as a right and what could be claimed was only a right to be considered for promotion.

The court noted that such rotational designation of the HOD post would enhance the efficiency in a department and would provide equal opportunity to all senior professors in the Department who may have their own expertise, ideas and vision. The court also added that before the amendment, the Senior most professor held the post till his retirement or promotion to higher rank which would, in effect, deny the opportunity of other senior professors who are all eligible to be designated as HODs.

Advantages Outweigh Procedural Infractions: Madras High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Leasing Of Temple Land For Building College

Case Title: TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 76

The Madras High Court has recently dismissed an appeal challenging the leasing out of temple land for building an Arts and Science College.

The division bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice C Kumarappan noted that even though the requirements of Rule 2 (1) of the Alienation of Immovable Trust Property Rules 1960 have not been entirely complied with, the advantages of the purpose for which leasing was done would outweigh the procedural infractions.

The court also noted that while Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 and the rules provided the procedure to be followed during the alienation of immovable trust property, the act and the rule were silent on the consequences of non-compliance with the procedural requirements. Thus, the bench observed that in the absence of consequence of non-compliance, the word 'shall' used in the provisions could be said to be directory and not mandatory.

Supply Of Holographic Stickers By Prohibition & Excise Dept For Affixing On Alcohol Bottles Is Supply Of “Goods”, Not Taxable: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.United Breweries Limited v. The Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals II)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 77

The Madras High Court has recently observed that the supply of holographic stickers or excise labels by the Prohibition and Excise Department which is to be affixed on manufactured and bottles alcoholic liquor is a supply of “goods” simplicitor and not a supply of “service”. The court thus ruled that such supply of holographic stickers would not be taxable under the GST enactments.

Justice C Saravanan noted that the holographic sticker was a label and therefore a good within the meaning of Section 2(52) of the CGST Act and the supply of label by the department had to be construed as a supply of “goods” and not a supply of “service”.

“Democracy Still In Its Infancy”: Madras High Court In Plea To Educate Politicians, Citizens Against Religion And Caste Based Voting

Case Title: Rajesh Anouar Mahimaidoss v Election Commission of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 78

While dismissing a plea seeking a system for educating voters against the corrupt practice of seeking votes in the name of religion, caste or language and uphold the Constitution of the country, the Madras High Court recently observed that the Indian Democracy, though 75 years old is still in its infancy.

The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that though a mandamus as sought for could not be issued, the court could only hope that things change and citizens as well as politicians change and not adopt caste or religion as the basis for contesting in election or for voting preference.

'CBFC Equipped To Perform Its Duty': Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Asking CBFC Not To Certify “Bad Girl” Movie

Case Title: Rashtriya Sanadhana Seva Sangam v. Regional Officer, CBFC

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 79

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking direction to the Central Board of Film Certification to not certify the upcoming Tamil movie “Bad Girl”.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed the plea noting the submission of the CBFC stating that till date, it had not received any application for censorship of the movie. The court added that even otherwise, the Board was equipped to perform its duty and would consider the application for censorship in accordance with law.

The observation was made on a petition filed by the President of Rashtriya Sanadhana Seva Sangam, an association to create unity and friendship among all community and help economically weaker people. The organisation also works for the development of Brahmins.

Matrimonial Dispute Not Ground To Conclude That Husband Set Ablaze Wife, Must Prove Allegations With Legally Acceptable Evidence: Madras HC

Case Title: Vendaraja v. The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 80

The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a man accused of setting his wife ablaze and killing her after noting that there was no legally acceptable evidence to connect him to the crime.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima observed that though the woman had died in a tragic manner and there were matrimonial disputes between the couple, the accused could not be made liable unless there were legally acceptable evidence connecting him to the crime. The court also noted that the possibility of a suicide could also not be ruled out and the deceased could have committed suicide by self immolation.

The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the Vendaraja, who was convicted by the Fast Track Mahila Court for offences under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC. The case of prosecution was that he had set his wife ablaze.

The court opined that the trial court had casually brushed aside the discrepancies in witness testimonies and the recovery of material objects. The court noted that the deceased was a well-built woman, and her hands were not found tied. The court opined that it was difficult to believe that the accused had tied the legs of the deceased on his own and without anyone's aid.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Not Proper If Anything Left Unregulated: Madras HC On Gaming Companies' Plea Against KYC, Time Restrictions In Real-Money Games

Case Title: Play Games 24x7 Private Limited and Another v State of Tamil Nadu (Batch cases)

Case No: WP 6784 of 2025

A group of online gaming companies have approached the Madras High Court challenging the regulations brought in by the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority making KYC verification mandatory for playing real money games and also instructing gaming companies to impose a 'blank hour' from 12 am to 5 am restricting the players from playing real money game during this time.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar issued notices to the State Government and the Union Government returnable by 2 weeks. The court refrained from passing any interim directions.

“Prohibition is different from regulation. Merely because the game is not prohibited, you can't say it shouldn't be regulated. If anything is left unregulated, it won't be proper,” the court remarked.

The gaming companies sought to declare Section 5(2) read with Sections 14(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act 2022 along with Regulation 4(iii) and Regulation 4(viii) of the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations 2025 as arbitrary void, illegal and unconstitutional.

Mother Of Accused In Anna University Sexual Abuse Case Moves Madras High Court Challenging His Detention Under Goondas Act

Case Title: Gengadevi v. The Secretary To The Government And Others

Case No: HCP No. 382 of 2025

The Madras High Court has sought the State's response on a plea challenging the detention of Gnanasekar, accused in Anna University sexual harassment case under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act 1982.

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar has sought a response to the plea by Gengadevi, Gnanasekar's mother.

Gnanasejar was accused of sexually assaulting a 2nd year engineering student at the Anna University campus in Chennai in December 2024. The High Court had constituted a Special Investigation Team to investigate the incident after finding faults in the state police's investigation.

By an order of the Commissioner of Police on January 5, 2025, Gnanasekar was detained stating that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order. He was termed as a “sexual offender” and detained in the Central Prison, Chennai.