Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 20 - October 26, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX

N Venkatesan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 364

K Heerajohn v. The District Registrar and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 365

Joe Micheal Praveen v. Apsara Reddy and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 366

X v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 367

Ramasamy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 368

Sureshbabu and Others v State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 369

K. Sadhasivam Vs. The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 370

M Muventhan v. The District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 371

The State v. Mohammed Hanifa @ Tenkasi Hanifa, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 372

Rhutikumari v. Zanmai Labs Pvt Ltd and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 373

REPORT

Karur Stampede: Madras High Court Grants Bail To TVK Salem District Secy Booked For Assaulting Ambulance Driver

Case Title: N Venkatesan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 364

The Madras High Court has granted bail to N Venkatesan, Salem District Secretary of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam Party for allegedly assaulting an ambulance driver in the aftermath of the Karur Stampede last month.

Justice S Srimathy ordered Vebkatesan to be released on bail by executing a surety for Rs. 10,000 on the condition that he report before the Karur Town Police Station daily at 10:30 a.m. for one week and thereafter when required.

Venkatesan was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on October 9, 2025, for offences under Sections 191(2) [Rioting], 296(b) [obscene acts and songs], 115(2) [voluntarily causing hurt], 127(2) [wrongful confinement], 351(2) [criminal intimidation] of the BNS read with Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992.

Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Muslim Personal Law; Adopted Child Has Same Status As Biological Child: Madras High Court

Case Title: K Heerajohn v. The District Registrar and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 365

The Madras High Court recently said that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act would prevail over the muslim personal laws, and an adopted child will have the same status as that of a biological child.

Justice GR Swaminathan also highlighted administrative delays in adoption procedures and said that such delays deprive the child of the formative experiences and opportunities that could alter their life's trajectory. The court thus highlighted that the authorities under the Juvenile Justice Act are obliged to speed up the adoption process.

Lawyer's Mistake Should Not Affect Litigant, Courts Must Be Lenient While Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decrees: Madras High Court

Case Title: Joe Micheal Praveen v. Apsara Reddy and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 366

The Madras High Court recently emphasised that the interest of the litigant should not be affected due to the errors or mistakes committed by the lawyers.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq added that the courts should normally take a lenient view while setting aside ex parte decrees. The court added that ex parte decrees must be awarded only in exceptional cases where the conduct of the party is totally indifferent.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by a YouTuber, Joe Micheal Praveen, against the order of a judge refusing to set aside an order directing him to pay Rs. 50 Lakh as compensation to Apsara Reddy, AIADMK sportsperson, for making derogatory statements against the latter.

Madras High Court Notes Centre's SOP To Curtail Dissemination Of Non-Consensual Intimate Images, Closes Woman Lawyer's Plea

Case Title: X v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 367

The Madras High Court, on Wednesday, closed a plea filed by a young woman lawyer to take down her intimate photos and videos that her former partner had posted without her consent.

Justice M Dhandapani took note of the Standard Operating Procedure that was submitted by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology for curtailing the dissemination of Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery Content. Previously, the court had asked the Ministry to explain the steps to be taken by a victim girl when her intimate photos/videos are posted online without consent.

The court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities under the SOP for removing any further images/videos of the lawyer that may be uploaded, and closed the plea.

"Surprising": Madras High Court On Service Of Summons After 12 Years Of Case Being Filed, Says Institutions Failed In Their Obligations

Case Title: Ramasamy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 368

The Madras High Court was recently surprised to note that the summons in a criminal case was served 12 years after the case was taken on file.

Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that the delay was attributable to both the police and the court registry. The court said that while the police failed to cause service of summons in time, the Judicial Magistrate also failed to verify whether the summons was issued, and did not call for an explanation for non-service.

The court also took note of the proceedings of the Director General of Police who had instructed all police personnel to utilise the e-summon mobile application. The court directed the Chief Secretary, the Secretary to the Government (Home Dept), the DGP, the Registrar General and the Registrar General (IT) to work in tandem and ensure strict compliance of e-summons.

Madras High Court Quashes Unlawful Assembly Case Against Men Who Gathered To Watch Live Telecast Of Ram Temple Consecration

Case Title: Sureshbabu and Others v State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 369

The Madras High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated in 2024, against a group of men for alleged unlawful assembly, noting that the men had gathered to watch the live telecast of the Ayodhya Ram temple ceremony.

Justice N Satish Kumar noted that whenever some religious functions are conducted, there would be some grievances by other groups. The court added that merely because the people had gathered to watch the function, it could not be said to be an unlawful assembly to attract the offences under the IPC.

The court remarked that the mere launching of the FIR was not sufficient to conclude that the offences had been made out. The court also observed that continuing the prosecution on shaky grounds or without materials would amount to abuse of process of law.

Departmental Proceedings Against Retired Employees Can't Be Initiated For Incidents Occurring More Than Four Years Before Issuance Of Charge Memo: Madras HC

Case Name : K. Sadhasivam Vs. The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 370

A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice R. Poornima held that the departmental proceedings against a retired government servant cannot be instituted for an event that took place more than four years prior to the issuance of the charge memo.

It was observed by the court that a departmental proceeding is deemed to be instituted only on the date the statement of charges is formally issued to the government servant or pensioner, as defined under Rule 9(6)(b).

It was further observed that Rule 9(2)(b) imposes a limitation that proceedings not instituted while in service shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.

Cock Fights Can't Be Given Cultural Status In Tamil Nadu, No Legal Right To Conduct It: Madras High Court

Case Title: M Muventhan v. The District Collector

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 371

The Madras High Court recently observed that there was no legal right to conduct a cock fight as the Statute expressly prohibits an animal fight organised by humans.

Justice GR Swaminathan noted that Section 11(1)(m)(ii) and Section 11(1)(n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act penalise any person who entices any animal to fight any other animal or who organises, keeps, uses or acts in the management of any place for animal fighting. Thus, noting that there was a statutory bar, the court was not inclined to grant the relief.

The court added that though cock fights were prevalent and well known, it could not be given a cultural status. The court added that the petitioner may have a legal right if the State decides to bring an amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, similar to one brought in 2017 following the Jallikattu issue.

Madras High Court Reverses Acquittal Of Man Who Planned Bomb Attack On LK Advani During His Madurai Rath Yatra In 2011

Case Title: The State v. Mohammed Hanifa @ Tenkasi Hanifa

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 372

The Madras High Court has set aside the order acquitting Mohammed Hanifa @ Tenkasi Hanifa for planning a bomb attack on former Home Minister LK Advani during his Rath Yatra in Madurai in 2011.

The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice L Victoria Gowri noted that though the trial court had pointed out certain contradictions for acquitting the accused, the contradictions were not material to go to the root of the prosecution case. The court noted that the contradictions were only minor.

The court was hearing an appeal by the Special Investigation Division, CB-CID wing, against the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, acquitting the accused. The prosecution's case was that while the case against the accused was pending for attempting to attack former Home Minister LK Advani through a planted bomb, the accused absconded at the preliminary stage. Following this, a non-bailable warrant was issued.

Madras High Court Recognises Cryptocurrency as Property, Says It Can Be“Held in Trust”

Case Title: Rhutikumari v. Zanmai Labs Pvt Ltd and Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 373

The Madras High Court on Saturday recognized cryptocurrency as a form of property that can be owned, enjoyed and held in trust, while granting protection to an investor whose digital assets were frozen on the WazirX exchange after a massive cyberattack.

In an order passed by Justice N Anand Venkatesh in an arbitration plea seeking interim relief, the court relied on two Supreme Court rulings, Ahmed G.H. Ariff v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, which broadly define the concept of “property,” and observed that these principles apply equally to cryptocurrencies

It held “Judging from the above two decisions, there can be no doubt that “crypto currency” is a property. It is not a tangible property nor is it a currency. However, it is a property, which is capable of being enjoyed and possessed (in a beneficial form). It is capable of being held in trust.”

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

'Being Cheated By Music Companies': Ilaiyaraaja Tells Madras High Court In Copyright Infringement Case Against Sony Music

Case Title: Dr Ilaiyaraaja v Sony Music Entertainment India Private Ltd and Others

Case No: OA 946 of 2025 and C.S (Comm Div) 249 of 2025

Renowned music composer Ilaiyaraaja, on Wednesday(October 22) told the Madras High Court he is being cheated by music companies who continued to use his songs without authorisation.

The submission was made before Justice N Senthilkumar, who was hearing a plea filed by the musician against Sony music against unauthorised usage of his songs. The court had previously directed the music company to provide day-to-day accounts of revenue generated through the streaming of Ilaiyaraaja's songs.

When the matter was taken up today, Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan, appearing for the music company, informed the court that the company had filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court and notice had been issued in the same.

SIR Of Tamil Nadu Electoral Rolls Will Begin In A Week: Election Commission Tells Madras High Court

Case Title: B Sathyanarayanan v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Another

Case No: WP 39744 of 2025

The Election Commission of India (ECI), on Friday, informed the Madras High Court that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the Tamil Nadu electoral rolls would commence in a week.

The submission was made before the bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan. The court was hearing a petition filed by former AIADMK MLA B Sathyanarayanan seeking directions to the Election Commission to conduct a complete and transparent re-verification of the 229 booths in T Nagar Constituency.

Appearing before the bench, the Standing Council for the ECI, Niranjan Rajagopal, submitted that the SIR for the Tamil Nadu electoral rolls would commence in a week and that the petitioner's grievance would be effectively redressed through the revision. The court took note of the submissions and adjourned the case by a week.