Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 13 - January 19, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 12 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 16 NOMINAL INDEX A. P. Raju v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 12R. Eswaran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 13Chinnakalai v The Tahsildar (Social Welfare Scheme) and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 14X v. The Chairperson and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 15A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 16 REPORT Registrar Not Expected To Act As A Civil Court: Madras High Court Discharges Former District Registrar From Corruption Case Case Title: A. P. Raju v. The State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 12 The Madras High Court recently discharged a former District Registrar from a corruption case observing that the materials put forward by the prosecution did not constitute any offence. The court noted that insisting a person to participate in a trial merely because the trial has commenced would violate his rights and compel him to undergo agony and anxiety. Justice N Seshasayee (now retired) observed that while registering a document, the Registrar was only required to make prima facie inquiry and not expected to act like a civil court. The court further noted that to constitute an offense under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution was required to produce materials that could prima facie persuade the court that it was adequate to frame charges. In the present case, the court opined that there was nothing to show that the petitioner had made personal gains with his decision which could attract the PC Act. 'Article 21 Doesn't Distinguish Between Good Or Bad Person': Madras HC Orders ₹50K Compensation For Illegal Detention Of History-Sheeter Case Title: R. Eswaran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 13 The Madras High Court recently directed the State Government to pay Rs. 50,000 compensation to a history sheeter for his illegal detention despite the Committee's report finding no sufficient cause for his detention. Though the state claimed that the history-sheeter was not entitled for compensation, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution only uses the word 'person' and does not distinguish between a 'good person' or a 'bad person'. The court thus observed that no law could say that only a paragon of virtues could be paid compensation. Persons Being Taken Care Of By Relatives Also Entitled To Claim Old Age Pension: Madras High Court Case Title: Chinnakalai v The Tahsildar (Social Welfare Scheme) and Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 14 The Madras High Court recently observed that the Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme did not contain any specific provision that excluded persons who were being taken care of by their relatives. Thus, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan ordered benefits to be given to an octogenarian whose application for old age pension was rejected due to the fact that he was being taken care of by his grandchildren. The court ruled that even though the petitioner was being taken care of by his grand children, he might still require financial help for other things including medical and incidental expenses. Thus, the court set aside the order of the Tahsildar and directed him to give benefits. Merely Submitting Adoption Plea Wouldn't Confer Any Rights To Unilaterally Take Child's Custody Without Following Procedure: Madras HC Case Title: X v. The Chairperson and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 15 The Madras High Court has observed that merely submitting an application seeking adoption of a child would not confer any rights on the parties concerned to take custody of the child unilaterally without "scrupulously" following the due procedure. A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman noted that the procedures contemplated under the relevant statutes have to be scrupulously followed and the committee constituted must assess the couple, including their mindset, capacity, family setup etc. Madras HC Grants Bail To YouTuber Savukku Shankar Booked For Spreading Misinformation About Investigation In Land 'Scam' Case Case Title: A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 16 The Madras High Court on Friday (January 17) granted bail to YouTuber and whistleblower Shankar alias Savukku Shankar in a case for allegedly spreading misinformation about the investigation in an alleged land scam case. The vacation court of Justice GR Swaminathan, while granting bail, orally remarked that the charges against Shankar did not warrant an arrest. The judge wondered how the State could arrest Shankar for such a case. When the state submitted that Shankar had been spreading misinformation through his channel and other channels, the judge commented that the state could choose not to listen to the...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 13 - January 19, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags