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

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 168 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 175 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...

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

Upasana Sajeev

Tags