Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 3 to March 9, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX

Prof. Dr. R. Manonmani and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 81

Bhuvaneswari and others v. M/s. Bvm Storage Solutions Pvt Ltd and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 82

Regina Begum v The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 83

L V Sarojini v The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 84

C. Ganesan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 85

The State v MK Alagiri, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 86

B Manickam Tagore v. V Vijaya Prabakaran and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 87

Nupur J Sharma And Another v. The Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 88

News Tamil 24x7 v. Shruthi Thilak and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 89

Venkatesh Sowrirajan v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 90

Y Babu v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 91

ML Ravi v Election Commission of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 92

Ammavasithevar v. KR Chitran and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

The State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. The Principal Secretary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

Dr S John William v. Loyola College (Autonomous), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 95

REPORT

Administrative Delay, Acts of Court Shouldn't Come In Way: Madras HC Directs State To Promote Eligible Professors As Dean In Govt Medical Colleges

Case Title: Prof. Dr. R. Manonmani and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 81

The Madras High Court has directed the State government to appoint professors specialising in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, General Surgery and Orthopaedics, to the post of Dean in Government Medical Colleges, whose promotion was delayed due to an oral order of the court and imposition of Model Code of Conduct (MCC) in light of the 2019 general elections.

Justice Anand Venkatesh in his order observed, “In the case in hand, there was an oral direction issued by the Madurai Bench of this Court not to issue the promotion and transfer order till a particular date and ultimately, those writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. This oral direction issued by the Madurai Bench of this Court should not act prejudicial to the rights of the petitioners, who would have otherwise got the promotion and transfer orders along with others on 28.2.2019 when the Medical Officers working in the other 22 specialities were issued with the promotion and transfer orders".

The court noted that the Government delayed the promotion of the individuals due to an oral instruction by the court asking the state not to issue any promotion order until a challenge to the same was heard. The court noted that the petitioners, who were otherwise eligible to be appointed as Deans, should not be denied the opportunity when they were not at fault. The court added that no person should suffer due to the act of the court.

Insurance Company Liable To Pay Compensation Even If Driver Was Intoxicated At Time Of Accident: Madras High Court

Case Title: Bhuvaneswari and others v. M/s. Bvm Storage Solutions Pvt Ltd and Another.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 82

The Madras High Court has recently observed that the Insurance company would be liable to pay compensation to the family of the deceased even if the driver of the vehicle that was involved in the accident was under the influence of alcohol at the time.

Justice M Dhandapani followed a decision of the Kerala High Court in Muhammed Rashid @ Rashid vs. Girivasan E.K and held that even if the policy document had a condition that driving of vehicle in an intoxicated condition is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance company would still be liable to pay the compensation.

Convicted Prisoner Too Has Right To Marry: Madras High Court While Granting Emergency Leave To Life Convict

Case Title: Regina Begum v The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 83

Noting that a convicted prisoner has a right to marry, the Madras High Court recently granted emergency leave to a prisoner for 15 days with the necessary escort for his marriage. The court passed the orders on January 3rd, 2025, enabling the prisoner to solemnize his marriage that was to take place on January 15, 2025.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima relied on Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982 which states that an emergency leave may be granted to a prisoner for attending death or serious illness of father, mother, wife, husband, son, daughter, full brother or full sister, or the wedding of the prisoner or son, daughter, full brother or full sister and for delivery outside the prison in case of female pregnant prisoner.

The court remarked that when the rule expressly provides for the grant of leave, the court could not contrarily dispose of such pleas. The court also disagreed with the practice adopted by some jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, where a life convict was not granted the right to marry.

FDs, Jewels Are Property Under Senior Citizens Act: Madras HC Allows Mother's Plea For Return Of Assets After Daughter Fails To Pay Maintainance

Case Title: L V Sarojini v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 84

The Madras High Court recently observed that fixed deposits in Banks, jewels, etc would come within the definition of “property” under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. The court thus noted that a complaint under Section 23 of the Act was maintainable when the daughter failed to maintain the mother after having fixed deposits transferred in her name.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan reiterated that the 2007 Act was a beneficial legislation that must be given a liberal construction in consonance with the objective of the Act. The court added that the Act was aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, and when two views was possible, the court should interpret it in favour of the beneficiaries.

Caste-Based Temple Administration Not A Religious Practice, Cannot Be Protected Under Articles 25, 26 Of Constitution: Madras High Court

Case Title: C. Ganesan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 85

Promoting its idea for a casteless society, the Madras High Court recently observed that no caste could claim ownership of a temple and that administering a temple by a particular caste was not a religious practice that could be protected under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that only if a group followed a particular philosophy or had a distinct way of carrying their faith could a group be called a denomination. The court added that the caste itself was not a religious denomination, and when no religious denomination or essential religious practice was involved, no protection could be granted under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The court also added that the exceptions under Articles 25 and 26 should always be tested within the secular fabric and should stand scrutiny of the Constitutional goal.

Sufficient Grounds For Prosecution: Madras High Court Asks Trial Court To Proceed With Land Grab Case Against Former Minister MK Alagiri

Case Title: The State v MK Alagiri

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 86

The Madras High Court on Tuesday allowed a revision petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the order of a Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, discharging former Union Minister MK Alagiri from offences under Sections 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC in a case for allegedly encroaching on temple land for building a college.

The court also dismissed a revision petition filed by Alagiri against the order of the Magistrate refusing to discharge him from offences under Section 120B and 408 of the IPC in the same case.

Justice P Velmurugan noted that as per the submissions, there were no grounds for discharging the Minister from the criminal case. Rather, the court observed that there were sufficient grounds to proceed with Alagiri's prosecution.

Madras HC Dismisses Congress Leader Manickam Tagore's Plea Seeking Rejection Of Election Petition Challenging His 2024 Lok Sabha Polls Victory

Case Title: B Manickam Tagore v. V Vijaya Prabakaran and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 87

The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed an application filed by Congress MP Manickam Tagore seeking to reject an election petition challenging his victory from the Virudhunagar Parliamentary Constituency in the 2024 General Assembly Elections.

Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that the disputed issues had to be tried with reference to the documents and evidence to be produced by the parties. The court added that it could not decide the disputed facts and issues at the stage of rejecting the election petition as it could not form an opinion at that stage. Noting that the exercise has to be done by the court at the time of dealing with the election petition and noting that there were allegations with regard to provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, the court was not inclined to reject the election petition.

Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against OpIndia's Rahul Roushan, Nupur Sharma Over Alleged Fake News On Bihari Migrants Being Attacked

Case Title: Nupur J Sharma And Another v. The Inspector of Police and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 88

The Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against the CEO of OpIndia, Rahul Roushan, and its Editor, Nupur Sharma, for allegedly spreading fake news about migrant workers of Bihar being attacked in Tamil Nadu.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, on Tuesday (4^th March), allowed the plea filed by Rahul and Nupur in 2023 seeking to quash the FIR registered against them by the Avadi Police.

The Thiruninravur Police in the Avadi City Police Commissionerate had registered the case under Sections 153A, 501, and 505 of the IPC for making statements and publishing defamatory content, thus promoting enmity between different groups of people. The case was registered upon a complaint lodged by Suryaprakash, a member of the IT Wing of the ruling DMK party. In his complaint, Suryaprakash stated that the portal had published fake news, which could create conflict and a sense of fear among the migrant workers in the State. He also stated that the news could cause disruption to public tranquility.

Madras High Court Declines To Interfere With Order To Register FIR Against News Channel For Allegedly Revealing Identity Of POCSO Victim

Case Title: News Tamil 24x7 v. Shruthi Thilak and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 89

The Madras High Court has recently refused to interfere with an order of the Special Judge for POCSO cases, Chennai, directing registration of an FIR against a Tamil news channel for allegedly revealing the identity of a victim in a POCSO case. As per Section 23 of the Act, media is restricted from disclosing the identity of the child, including name, address, photograph, family details, etc and any contravention of the rules is punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than 6 months but may extend to 1 year or with fine or both.

Justice P Velmurugan noted that no prejudice would be caused to the news channel if an FIR was registered and an investigation was carried on by the jurisdictional police. The court added that mere irregularity by the Special Judge could not be treated as an illegality. Further, considering the seriousness of the offence, the court was not inclined to set aside the order or stay the investigation.

Non-Devotional Songs Should Not Be Played Inside Temple Precincts: Madras High Court In Plea Against Singing Of Movie Songs

Case Title: Venkatesh Sowrirajan v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 90

The Madras High Court has asked various Temple authorities to ensure that only devotional songs are played by the orchestra that it may engage during any temple festival.

Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy was dealing with a petition stating that movie songs being sung inside temples is inappropriate. The court observed that orchestra arranged by the temple should ensure that only devotional songs are played inside the temple and should avoid playing non-devotional songs.

Subsequent Bail Pleas Arising Out Of Same FIR Should Be Listed Before Roster Judge: Madras Hight Court Clarifies

Case Title: Y Babu v. The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 91

While answering a reference made by a single judge, a division bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that all successive bail applications/anticipatory bail applications arising out of the same FIR/Crime Number shall be listed before the judge holding the roster.

On February 21, Justice Sunder Mohan had 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.

Thus answering the reference, a division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran confirmed that if there was a change in the roster when the successive bail petition came up, the judge dealing with the successive application should give weightage to the views expressed by his predecessor judge who dealt with the previous application.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Election Of DMK MP Dayanidhi Maran In 2024 Lok Sabha Elections

Case Title: ML Ravi v Election Commission of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 92

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the election of DMK MP Dayanidhi Maran from the Chennai Central constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections.

Justice Anand Venkatesh dismissed the plea filed by Advocate ML Ravi, who had also contested the election from the same constituency for Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi. The court also allowed a plea filed by Maran seeking to delete certain parts of the election petition.

In his plea, Ravi claimed that the election to the Chennai Central constituency was not free and fair and alleged that there were corrupt practices during the election. He thus sought to declare the election to the constituency null and void.

Madras High Court Upholds Order Directing Political Parties, Other Organisations To Remove Permanent Flagpoles From Govt Lands

Case Title: Ammavasithevar v. KR Chitran and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

A division bench of the Madras High Court has upheld the decision of a single judge directing all political parties, communal and other organizations in the State to remove permanent flagpoles erected by them on public places, including national highways, lands belonging to the government, etc.

The division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice S Srimathy dismissed an appeal filed against the single judge's order, noting that there was no reason to interfere with the same.

In January this year, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan directed all political parties in the State to remove the permanent flagpoles erected by them in public land within 12 months. The single judge also directed the concerned authorities to take appropriate action if the parties failed to comply with the orders of the court.

Madras High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs On State Of Tamil Nadu For “Re-Agitating” Case Which Had Already Been Decided By Supreme Court

Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. The Principal Secretary

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 5 Lakh on the State of Tamil Nadu for filing a writ appeal in a matter that had already attained finality through the order of the Supreme Court.

Dismissing the appeal filed by the State, Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the appeal was a “re-agitation” of a matter that had already been settled by a division bench of the Court and approved by the Supreme Court. Thus, the court imposed a cost directing the state to pay Rs. 2,50,000 to the sanitary worker whose appointment was challenged and the remaining Rs. 2,50,000 to be paid to the Madras High Court Legal Services Authority.

Every Individual Has Right To Complain, Can't Be Dismissed From Service Merely Because Complaint Is Not Proved: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dr S John William v. Loyola College (Autonomous)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 95

The Madras High Court recently observed that every individual has a right to complain of certain misdeeds, and merely because the complaint was not proved or not substantiated with materials, the individual could not be dismissed from service.

In doing so, Justice C Kumarappan modified the order of dismissal from service imposed on an Associate professor to that of compulsory retirement. The court also directed the college to pay all monetary benefits and other attendant benefits to the professor. The court noted that dismissing the professor from service at the fag end of his career when he had been serving the institution for more than 20 years was shockingly disproportionate.

Noting that the remedy should not be worse than the disease, the court emphasised that the punishment should always be commensurate with the gravity of the guilt. The court observed that in service jurisprudence, the Disciplinary Authority to always consider various factors, including the long period of service, promotions, period remaining for superannuation, etc.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Madras High Court Orders Attachment Of Part Of Late Actor Sivagi Ganesan's Property In Execution Petition Against Grandson

Case Title: M/s. Dhanabakkiam Enterprises v. Eshan Productions and Others

Case No: EP 68/2024

The Madras High Court has ordered the attachment of a property belonging to late actor Sivagi Ganesan in a plea seeking the execution of an arbitral award against his grandson Dushyanth Ramkumar and their production company Eshan Productions.

Justice Abdul Quddhose passed the order after noting that the mediation talks between the petitioner company – Dhanabakkiam Enterprises- and the respondents – the production company, Dushyanth, his wife Abirami, and his father Ram Kumar had failed.

The court noted that the respondents had not filed a counter till date, and the arbitral award that was sought to be enforced had also attained finality. Thus, the court was inclined to allow the petitioner company's prayer to attach the property.

Centre Notifies Permanent Appointments For Four Additional Judges Of Madras High Court

The Central Government has notified the appointment of four additional judges of the Madras High Court as permanent judges.

In a tweet by the Union Minister of Kaw and Justice, Arjun Ram Meghwal, it was informed that the following judges have been appointed as permanent judges of the Madras High Court.

(i) Justice Ramasamy Sakthivel

(ii) Justice P Dhanabal

(iii) Justice Chinnasamy Kumarappan, and

(iv) Justice Kandasamy Rajasekar

Modi-Trump Cartoon | Madras High Court Directs Centre To Lift Ban On Website Of Tamil Weekly Ananda Vikatan

Case Title: Ananda Vikatan Productions Private Ltd and Others v. Union of India

Case No: WP 7944 of 2025

The Madras High Court has directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to lift the ban imposed on the website of Tamil weekly “Ananda Vikatan” for its cartoon on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy directed the government to lift the ban on the website and asked the magazine to temporarily take down the page containing the cartoon.

The cartoon in question showed Prime Minister Narendra Modi in shackles and chains, sitting with President of United States Donald Trump. The website www.vikatan.com was blocked on February 25, 2025, stating that the website impinged upon the sovereignty of the country.