- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Madras High Court
- /
- Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 13 - January 19, 2025
Upasana Sajeev
20 Jan 2025 10:30 AM
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 12 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 16 NOMINAL INDEX A. P. Raju v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 12R. Eswaran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 13Chinnakalai v The Tahsildar (Social Welfare Scheme) and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 14X v. The Chairperson and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 15A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 12 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
NOMINAL INDEX
A. P. Raju v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
R. Eswaran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
Chinnakalai v The Tahsildar (Social Welfare Scheme) and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
X v. The Chairperson and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
REPORT
Case Title: A. P. Raju v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
The Madras High Court recently discharged a former District Registrar from a corruption case observing that the materials put forward by the prosecution did not constitute any offence. The court noted that insisting a person to participate in a trial merely because the trial has commenced would violate his rights and compel him to undergo agony and anxiety.
Justice N Seshasayee (now retired) observed that while registering a document, the Registrar was only required to make prima facie inquiry and not expected to act like a civil court.
The court further noted that to constitute an offense under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution was required to produce materials that could prima facie persuade the court that it was adequate to frame charges. In the present case, the court opined that there was nothing to show that the petitioner had made personal gains with his decision which could attract the PC Act.
Case Title: R. Eswaran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
The Madras High Court recently directed the State Government to pay Rs. 50,000 compensation to a history sheeter for his illegal detention despite the Committee's report finding no sufficient cause for his detention.
Though the state claimed that the history-sheeter was not entitled for compensation, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution only uses the word 'person' and does not distinguish between a 'good person' or a 'bad person'. The court thus observed that no law could say that only a paragon of virtues could be paid compensation.
Persons Being Taken Care Of By Relatives Also Entitled To Claim Old Age Pension: Madras High Court
Case Title: Chinnakalai v The Tahsildar (Social Welfare Scheme) and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme did not contain any specific provision that excluded persons who were being taken care of by their relatives.
Thus, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan ordered benefits to be given to an octogenarian whose application for old age pension was rejected due to the fact that he was being taken care of by his grandchildren.
The court ruled that even though the petitioner was being taken care of by his grand children, he might still require financial help for other things including medical and incidental expenses. Thus, the court set aside the order of the Tahsildar and directed him to give benefits.
Case Title: X v. The Chairperson and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
The Madras High Court has observed that merely submitting an application seeking adoption of a child would not confer any rights on the parties concerned to take custody of the child unilaterally without "scrupulously" following the due procedure.
A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman noted that the procedures contemplated under the relevant statutes have to be scrupulously followed and the committee constituted must assess the couple, including their mindset, capacity, family setup etc.
Case Title: A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
The Madras High Court on Friday (January 17) granted bail to YouTuber and whistleblower Shankar alias Savukku Shankar in a case for allegedly spreading misinformation about the investigation in an alleged land scam case.
The vacation court of Justice GR Swaminathan, while granting bail, orally remarked that the charges against Shankar did not warrant an arrest. The judge wondered how the State could arrest Shankar for such a case. When the state submitted that Shankar had been spreading misinformation through his channel and other channels, the judge commented that the state could choose not to listen to the interview.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: K Palanivel v The State of Tamil Nadu
Case No: WP 1437 of 2025
The Madras High Court has issued notices to the State of Tamil Nadu, the Director General of Police, the Superintendent of Police Villupuram, the Inspector at Vikkiravandi Police Station, the Inspector CB-CID, and the CBI in a plea seeking a CB CID or CBI probe into the death of an LKG student by allegedly falling into the septic tank of the private school.
Justice GR Swaminathan issued notice on Friday on a plea filed by the child's father, K Palanivel.