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

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 customs. The court noted that while choosing a life partner was a personal choice, the legality of the marriage, performed as per Hindu customs would be under cloud. Thus, the court held that if a Hindu person wished to marry a non-Hindu, the marriage should be registered as per the Special Marriage Act to avoid any illegality and challenge to the subsequent legal marital status. The court also added that there must be an awareness in this regard, among prospective brides and grooms.

Madras High Court Issues Directions To Clear Backlog Of Cheque Bounce Cases In Magistrate Courts

Case Title: M/s. Ultimate Computer Care v. M/s. S. M. K. Systems

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 57

Noting the pendency of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions for speedy of disposal of cases.

“Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are clogging the Magistrate Courts for years on account of various reasons. The very purpose of the introduction of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would be defeated on account of the delay involved in the disposal of such matters,” the court said.

Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the pendency of cases defeats the purpose for the introduction of Chapter XVII of the Act. The court added that though the Constitutional Courts had issued directions in this regard, lack of effective oversight mechanisms have resulted in the directions remaining mere paper directives.

75 Yrs Of Constitution But Society Yet To Shed 'Unwanted Baggage' Of Caste: Madras HC Refuses To Appoint Temple Trustees From Particular Sub-Caste

Case Title: A Rajendran v The Joint Commissioner

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 58

While dismissing a plea seeking to frame a scheme of administration in Arulmighu Varatharaja Perumal and Senraya Perumal Temple by appointing non-hereditary trustees from a particular caste, the Madras High Court observed that the very prayer is opposed to public policy and constitutional goals.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy lamented that despite 75 years of the Constitution, sections of the society was yet to shed the unwanted baggage. The court added that if such prayers are allowed, the very operation of the Constitutional Scheme would get frustrated. The court added that any prayer which has the effect of perpetuating caste is not only unconstitutional but also opposed to public policy.

Madras High Court Upholds Rejection Of AI-Human Integration Patent Claim

Case Title: CALEB SURESH MOTUPALLI v. CONT

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 59

The Madras High Court bench dismissed an appeal seeking a review of a patent claim for a product designed to integrate human and AI capabilities. The appeal was filed by Caleb Suresh Motupalli before the single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, challenging the order of the Controller of Patents. Upon review, the court found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the Controller's decision and accordingly rejected the appeal.

The court concurred with the defendant's submission that the claims were too vague, and lacked a clear technical feature. The court found that the invention did not meet the requirements of the Patents Act due to its ambiguity and failure to properly base the claims on the details provided in the complete specification. It held that the invention did not offer any clear method to achieve the intended result. Additionally, it determined that the invention had no real technical effect and failed to deliver the promised super-augmentation of the user.

The court held that The Controller erred by dealing with the review application as an original application for a patent grant, conducting a second full-fledged hearing, and issuing an order in the nature of an order-in-original under Section 15 of the Patents Act.The court noted that the Controller should have rejected the review application as the original order did not suffer from any procedural defect or sufficient reason.The court did not accept the submissions of the applicant and dismissed the appeal filed by Caleb, upholding the Controller's decision to reject the patent application.

State Can't Permit Protests Which Disrupt Public Peace & Tranquility: Madras High Court Dismisses Bharath Hindu Munnani's Plea

Case Title: S Yuvaraj v The Commissioner of Police and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 60

The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed an application for permitting a procession condemning the recent events at Thiruparakundram, Madurai.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that for the incidents that happened in Thiruparakundram, resolutions had already been passed between the concerned parties before the RDO and there was no need to conduct another procession, in Chennai to condemn the incidents. The court highlighted that the State could not permit any form of protest which disrupted the public peace and harmony. The court highlighted that Unity in Diversity was the strength of the country and government had to maintain the harmony among the different religions.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Centre Notifies Appointment Of Two Additional Judges Of Madras High Court As Permanent Judges

Central government has notified the appointment of following two Additional Judges of the Madras High Court as permanent Judges:

1) Justice Venkatachari Lakshminarayanan, and

2) Justice Periyasamy Vadamalai

Madras High Court Stays Single Judge Order Directing Enquiry Against Customs Officers For Seizing 'Thalikodi' Of Newly Married Woman

Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Customs and Another v. Thanushika

Case No: WA 413 of 2025

A division bench of the Madras High Court has stayed a single judge order directing inquiry against Customs officers who forcefully removed the thali of a newly married woman on suspicion of smuggling gold.

The division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice C Saravanan stayed the order of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy on an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai.