Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 10 - February 16, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 53 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 60 NOMINAL INDEX Kajendran J v. Superintendent of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 53 T Ramalakshmi v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 54 Mr VA. Pugazhendi v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 55 Jeyakumari v Stephen, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 56 M/s. Ultimate Computer Care v. M/s. S. M. K. Systems, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 57 A Rajendran v The Joint Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 58 CALEB SURESH MOTUPALLI v. CONT, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 59 S Yuvaraj v The Commissioner of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 60 REPORT Courts Should Not Insist On Conducting 'Potency Tests' On Accused Persons In A Routine Manner: Madras High Court Case Title: Kajendran J v. Superintendent of Police and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 53 The Madras High Court has asked the courts across the state of Tamil Nadu not to insist on conducting potency tests on accused persons in a routine manner. The court also directed the Director General of Police to issue circulars to the departments asking the officers to refrain from sending the accused for potency test in a mechanical manner. The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sunder Mohan, which was constituted to monitor the implementation of provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Juvenile Justice Act on the judicial side, made the observations after being informed that while there was awareness against Two-Finger tests in the state, instances of male potency tests still continued. The bench also noted that despite previous orders and a circular issued by the DGP, minor boys who were involved in romantic relationships with minor girls were mechanically arrested and produced before the Juvenile Justice Boards, which then sent the minor boys to the observation homes. The court noted that such procedure ran counter to the earlier circulars and the orders of the court and thus directed the DGP to re-familiarise the police officials regarding the circular, making them aware of the procedure to be followed in such cases. Prisoner Can Be Granted Ordinary/Emergency Leave During Pendency Of Criminal Appeal Provided He Is Not Facing Trial In Any Other Case: Madras HC Case Title: T Ramalakshmi v. The State and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 54 The Madras High Court has recently clarified that a prisoner could be granted ordinary or emergency leave while an appeal is pending before the High Court or a Special Leave petition is pending before the Apex Court. The full bench of Justice SM Subramaniam, Justice TV Thamilselvi, and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that as per Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982, the prison authority was empowered to grant ordinary leave. The court however clarified that if the prisoner is facing trial in any other case, the prison authorities. Siding with an observation of a division bench of Madras High Court in Latha v. State, the court observed that Rule 35 states that no prisoner, on whom a trial was pending, could not be granted leave. The court noted that the language used in the Rules is “pending trial” and not “pending appeal”. Thus, the court said that the rules would not bar a prisoner who had an appeal pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court.s could reject his leave application in limine. Madras HC Vacates Stay On ECI Proceedings In Connection With AIADMK Party Leadership, Asks ECI To Enquire As Per Election Symbols Order Case Title: Mr VA. Pugazhendi v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 55 The Madras High Court has vacated a stay on the proceedings initiated by the Election Commission of India on the basis of representations filed by individuals in connection with the AIADMK “two leaves” symbol dispute and party leadership row. The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan asked the ECI to inquire into the issue within the parameters of its powers under Para 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968. The bench asked the ECI to first satisfy itself about the existence of a party dispute, its jurisdiction and then proceed with the inquiry. Hindu Person's Marriage With Non-Hindu Foreigner To Be Registered Under Special Marriage Act, Not Valid Under Hindu Marriage Act: Madras HC Case Title: Jeyakumari v Stephen Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 56 The Madras High Court has observed that a marriage between a Hindu and a person belonging to any other religion cannot be celebrated under the Hindu Marriage Act as the Act requires both the parties to the marriage to belong to the Hindu faith. The bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice N Senthilkumar also noted that often a Hindu person was marrying a foreigner, a non-Hindu belonging to a different faith as per Hindu...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 10 - February 16, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags