Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 22 to December 28, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 493 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 500 NOMINAL INDEX P Thirumalai v. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 493 Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. The Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 494 The Government of India v. S Somasundaram and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 495 Kannan Gopalakrishnan v. Controller of Patents, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 496 The Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 497 K.M. Mammen v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 498 S Vijayakumar v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 499 A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 500 REPORT Public Funds Can't Be Given To 'Favoured Few': Madras High Court Suggests Audit Of 'Scandalously High' Fees Paid To Govt Law Officers Case Title: P Thirumalai v. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 493 The Madras High Court has recently observed that it was time that an audit be conducted regarding payment of fee to the law officers in the State. Justice GR Swaminathan made the observation on noting that Additional Advocate Generals were appearing even in small matters where their presence was not required. The court added that while it could not enquire into the quantum of fee to be paid to senior counsels and additional advocate generals, good governance was required to ensure that public money was not given away to a favoured few. Bhagavad Gita Is Not Religious Text, It's Moral Science: Madras High Court Sets Aside FCRA Rejection Of Trust Teaching Gita, Yoga Case Title: Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. The Union of India and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 494 While setting aside the Central Government's order refusing registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 to a trust engaged in the teaching of yoga, the Madras High Court recently remarked that Bhagavad Gita is not a religious book, but more about moral science. Justice GR Swaminathan was hearing a petition filed by Arsha Vidya Parampara trust against an order filed by the Director, FCRA Wing, Ministry of Home Affairs rejecting an application for registration under the Act. The court also noted that the reason why organisation was termed religious was because it taught Bhagavad Gita. The court observed that Bhagavad Gita was not a religious book and speaks about internal and eternal trust. The court also remarked that the Gita had inspired some national leaders during the freedom struggle and under Article 51A(b) it was the duty of citizens to cherish and follow the noble ideas which inspired our national struggle for freedom. The court also noted that the trust taught Vedanta and Yoga, which also could not be termed as religious. The court remarked that Yoga was universal and could not be viewed through the prism of religion. Grant Of State Pension To Freedom Fighter Does Not Automatically Result In Extension of Central Pension: Madras High Court Case Title: The Government of India v. S Somasundaram and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 495 The Madras High Court recently held that the grant of a state pension to a freedom fighter would not automatically result in the extension of a central pension to the pensioner. The court added that for granting the Central Government Pension Scheme, the conditions stipulated in the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (SSS Scheme) had to be followed. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan set aside an order of the single judge, which held that once the state government has extended the benefit of the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, the central government has to extend the same, and that the eligibility criteria fixed by the central government need not be followed strictly. Madras High Court Grants Inventor Opportunity To Demonstrate His Solar Power Device Before Patent Office Case Title: Kannan Gopalakrishnan v. Controller of Patents Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 496 The Madras High Court has directed the Patent Office to grant an inventor one opportunity to demonstrate the working of his invention, holding that a potentially viable invention should not be rejected without adequate consideration. Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18, 2025, while disposing of a writ petition filed by Kannan Gopalakrishnan challenging the rejection of his patent review application relating to an invention titled “Solar Supplemental Power Source.” The invention is described as an electro-mechanical device intended to generate electricity even when solar energy is unavailable.The court noted that the petitioner was only seeking an opportunity to demonstrate his invention. Income Tax | Govt Grant/Subsidy Under Rehabilitation Scheme Is Capital Receipt, Not Taxable...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 22 to December 28, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags