Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 16 - June 22, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 201 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 211 NOMINAL INDEX Jaganmoorthy v Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 201 Muruganandam and Another v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 202 ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 203 Vetri Maaran v. The Chairman, CBFC and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 204 R Jim v. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 205 Madurai Multi Functional Complex Private Limited v. the Madurai Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 206 The Executive Secretary of District and Others v. K.S Subha Karuthukhan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 207 Akash Baskaran v. The Joint Director, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 208 Sakthivel Ganesan v. Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 209 J Revathy v The Government of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 210 M Arasupandi v. The Commissioner of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 211 REPORT 'No One Above Law': Madras High Court Orders Arrest Of ADGP To Investigate His Alleged Involvement In Abduction Case Case Title: Jaganmoorthy v Inspector of Police Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 201 The Madras High Court has ordered the Tamil Nadu police to arrest Additional Director General of Police HM Jayaram to investigate his alleged involvement in an abduction case. The judge has also asked KV Kuppam MLA "Poovai" Jagan Moorthy to cooperate with the investigating authorities. Justice P Velmurugan directed the police to take action against the ADGP as per law. The court added that being a public servant, Jayaram was answerable to the public. The judge added that a strong message should go out to the public that no one was above law. Madras High Court Criticizes Police For "Suppressing Dissent", Suo Moto Prosecuting Peaceful Protestors Case Title: Muruganandam and Another v. State Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 202 The Madras High Court recently criticised the Tamil Nadu police for trying to suppress dissent by registering criminal cases against individuals who were peacefully protesting against issues that affected public health and social welfare. The court thus quashed criminal proceedings against individuals who had participated in protests against the functioning of a TASMAC outlet in a populated area. Justice P Velmurugan also remarked that if criminal cases were registered against every citizen who participates in peaceful protests, it would amount to criminalisation of democratic expression. The court thus added that the case showed how the criminal justice system was being wrongly used against people who were working for the welfare of the community. Unsubstantiated Sexual Harassment Allegation Against Husband, Father-in-Law Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Case Title: ABC v. XYZ Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 203 While granting divorce to a husband, the Madras High Court recently observed that making unsubstantiated sexual allegations against husband and father-in-law amounts to defamation which in turn constitutes mental cruelty. The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Sakthivel held as under, “As elaborated above, the unestablished sexual allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner and his father, amounts to cruelty and thus, the petitioner has made out a case under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of H.M. Act. Points for consideration arising in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are answered accordingly. The petitioner is thus entitled to a Decree of divorce,” the court said. The court thus noted that though the wife was willing to resume the marital life, considering the mental cruelty that was inflicted by her upon the husband, the husband's unwillingness to reunite was justified. Noting that the parties could not reach a consensus even during mediation, the court was inclined to allow the husband's appeal and dissolve the marriage. Will Consider Certifying "Manushi" Movie If Objectionable Content Is Removed: CBFC Tells Madras High Court In Vetri Maaran's Plea Case Title: Vetri Maaran v. The Chairman, CBFC and Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 204 The Madras High Court on Tuesday disposed of a plea filed by director Vetri Maaran challenging the CBFC's refusal to certify the upcoming Tamil movie “Manushi”, produced by Maaran, without specifying the objectionable content. The CBFC informed Justice N Anand Venkatesh that as per the previous order of the court, the reviewing board had watched the movie again and had provided the details of the portions/dialogues/scenes from the movie, to which it had objections. The Board also informed the court that it was willing to consider certifying the movie, if it is submitted afresh, after removing the objectionable content. At the same time, Advocate Subash, appearing for Vetri Maaran, informed the court that he had objections with respect to the objectionable portions of the film, pointed out by the board. Since such ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 16 - June 22, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags