Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 19 to May 25, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX

S. Sai Priya and others v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 168

K V Venugopal v. Secretary to Government of TN, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 169

V Iyyappan v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 170

Sivakumar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 171

A Paramasivam and Another v. The Inspector of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 172

K Venkatachalapathy @ Kutty v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 173

ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 174

R Lalithambai and Another v. Anshul Mishra IAS, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 175

REPORT

Madras High Court Orders Interim Stay On Declaration Of 2025 NEET UG Results

Case Title: S. Sai Priya and others v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 168

The Madras High Court has stayed the declaration of results for the NEET UG 2025 examination.

Justice V Lakshminarayan on Friday ordered an interim stay on the declaration of results on the plea filed by a group of students seeking re-examination. Noting that the students must be given an opportunity to present their case, the court ordered interim stay.

The plea was filed by a group of students who had appeared for the examination in May 2025 at the PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya CRPF, Avadi, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The grievance of the students was that their examination was disrupted due to the heavy rainfall and poor management by the center and that a re-examination be conducted for them.

'All Are Humans Before God, No Caste Discrimination': Madras High Court Junks Pleas For Appointing Temple Trustee From Particular Caste

Case Title: K V Venugopal v. Secretary to Government of TN

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 169

While rejecting a plea for appointing temple trustees from a particular caste, the Madras High Court recently noted that before god, all persons are human beings and that there could not be any discrimination based on caste.

“Before God, all persons are human beings and therefore, there cannot be any discrimination based on caste. Accordingly, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court and cannot be countenanced, this writ petition is dismissed,” the court said.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy referred to one of his judgments earlier this year where the court had held that any prayer which has the effect of perpetuating caste was not just unconstitutional but also against public policy.

Person Loses Hindu Scheduled Caste Status By Marrying Under Christian Law, Can't Claim SC Reservation: Madras High Court

Case Title: V Iyyappan v. The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 170

The Madras High Court recently held that when a person voluntarily submits himself/herself for conducting marriage under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, the person would be considered Christian thereafter and their native religion is renounced automatically.

Justice L Victoria Gowri thus held that the incumbent Chairman of the Theroor Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari was disqualified from holding the post reserved for SC community— as she had solemnized marriage as per Christian rites and was thus deemed to have renounced her original social identity of Hindu Scheduled Caste Pallan.

The court added that to retain the socio-religious identity after inter-religious marriage, the only possible way was to have a civil marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

'Age Wasn't Proven': Madras High Court Acquits Father & Priest Accused Of Molesting Minor Under POCSO, Charges Them Under IPC

Case Title: Sivakumar v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 171

The Madras High Court recently acquitted a father and a priest who were accused of molesting a minor girl under different circumstances. While acquitting the petitioners (accused) under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the court noted that the date of birth certificate issued by the headmistress was not in the nature of any public or official register.

The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice K Rajasekar noted that the certificate did not fulfil the requisites of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act and was not a birth certificate issued by the school. Thus, the court held that the certificate was not sufficient to prove the age of the victim girl. Noting that the prosecution had failed to prove the age of the victim girl in accordance with Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, the court held that the offences under the POCSO Act could not be attracted.

Govt Has Moral Responsibility To Ensure That Cheated Victims Get Back Their Money Under Protection Of Depositor's Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: A Paramasivam and Another v. The Inspector of Police and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 172

The Madras High Court recently highlighted the shortcomings of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act and emphasised that the government has to take steps to evolve mechanisms to ensure that victims get their money back and that the object of the Act is achieved.

Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai bench noted that even though the object of the Act was to ensure that the depositors, who have been cheated, get their money back, only 10% of the amount has been disbursed to the victims. The court thus noted that the government had a moral responsibility to ensure that the victims get their money back.

Madras High Court Stays TN Amendment Taking Away Governor's Power To Appoint Vice Chancellors To State-Run Universities

Case Title: K Venkatachalapathy @ Kutty v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 173

The Madras High Court on Wednesday stayed the amendments brought in by the Tamil Nadu government, taking away the Governor's power to appoint Vice Chancellors to State-run Universities.

The State amendments were made pursuant to the recent Supreme Court judgment defining the powers of the Governor.

The vacation bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan passed the interim order on a plea filed by an advocate challenging the series of legislative amendments passed by the State of Tamil Nadu, transferring the powers of appointing the Vice-Chancellor from the Governor to the State Government.

Wife Focusing On Her Own Career& Refusing To Relocate To Canada With Husband Is Not Cruelty: Madras High Court

Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 174

The Madras High Court recently observed that a wife prioritizing her career and academics and refusing to go to husband's place of work would not be cruelty.

The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Sakthivel observed as under,

“The petitioner is not ready to sacrifice his career, and wants the respondent / his wife to come and live with him. Similarly, the respondent wants to focus on her academics and career as well. Both are not ready to compromise on each other's priorities and consequently, have some spousal conflicts. Since both are equally qualified and educated and pursuing their careers as they desire, this Court cannot find fault with act of the respondent in prioritizing her academics or career. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the ground of cruelty for dissolution of marriage has not been made out in this case.”

Madras High Court Sentences IAS Officer To One Month Imprisonment In Contempt Case, Asks Him To Pay Compensation Out Of Salary

Case Title: R Lalithambai and Another v. Anshul Mishra IAS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 175

The Madras High Court has sentenced IAS officer Anshul Mishra to one month simple imprisonment for “civil contempt” by failing to follow an earlier order of the court in a land case. The court however suspended his sentence to allow him to file an appeal.

Justice P Velmurugan also asked the officer to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the petitioners (an elderly duo) from his personal salary. The court asked the Government to deduct the compensation from his salary.

Emphasizing that public service was not a privilege but a trust, the court said that the citizen's confidence on the justice delivery system rests on the assurance that court orders would be implemented promptly. The court thus remarked that repeated defiance by public officials would challenge the fundamental principles of justice that the rule of law is meant to uphold.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

'Not Trying To Protect TASMAC, Won't Close Predicate FIRs': State To Madras High Court On Apprehension Of PMLA Action Being Rendered Infructous

The Tamil Nadu government on Thursday assured the Madras High Court that it is not trying to "protect" TASMAC, a State-owned alcohol vending enterprise, in the alleged ₹1,000 crores liquor scam.

Case Title: K Venkatachapathy v. Union of India

Case No: WP 18248 of 2025

While seeking adjournment in a PIL for CBI probe into the alleged TASMAC scam, which is already under scanner of the Enforcement Directorate, Advocate General PS Raman undertook that the State will not circumvent the PMLA action by dropping the predicate offence against TASMAC.

During the hearing, vacation bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan expressed reluctance to adjourn the matter, remarking that the State has been identifying itself with TASMAC.

AG Raman however claimed that a wrong impression was being given and the State was only trying protect Federalism.

Samagra Shiksha Funds Not Released As Tamil Nadu Didn't Sign MoU To Implement National Education Policy: Centre Tells Madras High Court

Case Title: V Easwaran v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Case No: WP 18427 of 2025

The Central Government on Friday informed the Madras High Court that the funds under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan have not been released for the State of Tamil Nadu as the State has not signed a Memorandum of Understanding for implementing the National Education Policy.

Notably, the Tamil Nadu government has moved an original suit in the Supreme Court against the Union Government, alleging that the Centre was withholding funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme(SSS) over the non-implementation of the National Education Policy 2020 & PM SHRI in the State.

The submission was made by Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan before a vacation bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan. The ASG was replying to a query raised by the court on why the Centre was withholding funds for Tamil Nadu while the funds for other states were being released promptly. Sundaresan informed the court that since the State had not signed the MoU, the Centre had not released its share of 60% under the Scheme. He also added that the State had also not paid its own share of 40%.

Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Savukku Shankar's Plea Alleging Swindling Of Funds From Ambedkar Champions Scheme

Case Title: A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The Director, CBI

Case No: WP 18178 of 2025

The Madras High Court, on Friday, reserved orders on a petition filed by YouTuber Savukku Shankar seeking CBI probe into alleged corruption in the implementation of the Annal Ambedkar Business Champions Scheme, a scheme to promote economic development of SC/ST entrepreneurs.

The vacation bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan reserved the plea for orders 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 also appreciated the Government of Tamil Nadu for bringing in the scheme which aims to make sanitation workers entrepreneurs, thus bringing in the concept of Sanipreneurs. However, the court remarked that someone had taken the Chief Minister for a ride in the implementation of the scheme.