Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 11 - August 17, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 272 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 276 NOMINAL INDEX Murugesan v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 272 Varaaki v. The Registrar General and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 273 D Thenmozhi v The Inspector of Police (law and Order) and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 274 M Gunasekaran v. The State Level Scrutiny Committee – II and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 275 S Vijay v. Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 276 REPORT Pulling Woman's Hands Though Shocks Decency, It Doesn't Outrage Her Modesty Unless Coupled With 'Criminal Intent': Madras High Court Case Title: Murugesan v. The Inspector of Police Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 272 The Madras High Court recently observed that though pulling the hands of a woman by a man would shock her sense of decency, it would not amount to outraging the modesty of the woman if there was no criminal intention. Justice RN Manjula added that without any clear evidence about the intention of the man, vague or generalised statements would only earn a benefit of doubt in favour of the accused with respect to his criminal intention. The court thus set aside the conviction of a man, sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 354 of the IPC. “Publicity Interest Litigation”: Madras High Court Rejects Plea To Restrain Retired Judges From Issuing Public Letters/ Statements Case Title: Varaaki v. The Registrar General and Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 273 The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking to forbear retired judges from issuing public letters, appeals, or statements allegedly intended to influence pending judicial proceedings, particularly in matters involving allegations against sitting Judges. The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan called the plea a “publicity interest litigation” and remarked that judges are not affected by such statements made against them. The court thus dismissed the plea and imposed cost. The plea was filed in light of the recent letter written by retired judges of the Madras High Court to sitting judge Justice GR Swaminathan, after the latter called for an explanation from a lawyer for raising caste bias allegation against the judge. Sanitation Workers Protest | Madras High Court Directs State To Remove Protesting Workers, Says Demonstration Can Only Be In Authorised Place Case Title: D Thenmozhi v The Inspector of Police (law and Order) and Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 274 The Madras High Court, on Wednesday, directed the State to take action to remove the Greater Chennai Corporation sanitation workers who have been protesting at the Rippon Building for almost 12 days demanding a reversal of the Corporation's decision to privatise solid waste management in some zones. The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the workers could protest only at authorised places. Since the rippon building was not an authorised place for protest, and since no permission had been taken to conduct the protest, the court ordered them to be removed from the place. The court also added that it would be open for the protesting workers to make applications to the concerned authorities seeking permission for conducting the protest, which could be considered appropriately. Can SC/ST Community Status Of Govt Employee Be Verified After Retirement? Madras High Court Delivers Split Verdict Case Title: M Gunasekaran v. The State Level Scrutiny Committee – II and Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 275 The Madras High Court has delivered a split verdict on whether the community status of a government employee can be verified/scrutinised after their retirement. While Justice Nisha Banu opined that reopening the verification of a community certificate would amount to re-litigation, Justice M Jothiraman opined that once a verification starts, it should continue till its conclusion. Since contradictory views have been taken by the judges, the Registry has been directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for further action. The court was hearing two writ petitions filed by M Gunasekaran and G Thangavel seeking to restrain the SC/ST Vigilance Cell from conducting verification of their respective caste status. In both cases, the persons were issued notices calling upon them to appear for an enquiry in connection with the verification of their community certificate, years after their retirement. "Prima Facie Unlawful": Madras High Court Directs Release Of Lawyers, Law Students Detained During Sanitation Workers Protest Case Title: S Vijay v. Commissioner of Police Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 276 The Madras High Court on Thursday (August 14) directed the release of four lawyers and two law students who were detained by the police at midnight in...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 11 - August 17, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags