Important Judgments of Madras High Court (2025) - Legal Bites Year Update

Legal Bites presents a brief collection of significant 2025 judgments of the Madras High Court that underscore the practical enforcement of constitutional rights. Touching upon equality, dignity, personal liberty, women’s rights, social welfare, and administrative accountability, these rulings show how the Court continues to intervene to protect citizens and uphold constitutional morality in everyday governance.

 Important Judgments of Madras High Court (2025)
Legal Bites Year Update

1) Caste-Based Temple Trusteeship Violates Constitutional Equality

The Madras High Court in K.V. Venugopal v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2025), categorically rejected a caste-based claim to temple trusteeship, holding that restricting the administration of a public temple to members of a particular caste, even under a colonial-era scheme decree, is unconstitutional. The Court ruled that caste is not a religious denomination under Article 26 and that any scheme or custom perpetuating caste exclusivity violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, affirming that equality, secular governance, and constitutional morality must prevail over regressive and discriminatory practices in the management of public religious institutions.

2) Married Woman Not Required to Seek Husband’s Consent for Passport

In J. Revathy v. Union of India & Ors. (2025), the Court categorically held that Indian law does not mandate a married woman to obtain her husband’s permission or signature while applying for a passport. The insistence by passport authorities on such a requirement was found to be arbitrary, unjustified, and devoid of any legal foundation. The Court emphasised that marriage does not reduce a woman’s legal autonomy, and a married woman does not become dependent on her husband for personal or official matters such as obtaining a passport.

3) Family Pension for Disabled Dependents is a Right, Not Charity

In Principal Accountant General v. A.V. Jerald (2025), the Madras High Court emphatically held that family pension for mentally or physically disabled dependents is a legal right, not a matter of charity. Interpreting Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Rule 49(6) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, the Court ruled that once a competent medical certificate establishes the dependent’s inability to earn a livelihood, pension must be granted for life without insisting on income certificates or other extraneous conditions.

The Court condemned bureaucratic delays, linked pension entitlement to the right to life and dignity under Article 21, and directed authorities to process such claims promptly, reinforcing that a pension is deferred compensation earned by service, not discretionary benevolence.

4) Maternity Leave Counts as Bond Service

In Dr. E. Krithikaa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2025), the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that maternity leave availed by a doctor must be counted towards the mandatory bond service period and that withholding original educational certificates on this ground is illegal. The Court ruled that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 override bond conditions and, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kavita Yadav, applied a legal fiction treating the maternity period as service rendered.

5) Freedom of Expression Does Not Protect Derogatory Depictions of Deities

In P. Paramasivan v. Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Thoothukudi (2025), the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that portraying Hindu Gods in a vulgar or derogatory manner with the intent to hurt religious sentiments cannot be justified under the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court set aside the Magistrate’s acceptance of an “undetected” final report, noting serious lapses in investigation and procedural irregularities, and directed continuation of the probe.

6) Equality in Access to Public Resources Requires a Change in Mindset

In Thirumalaisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2025), the Madras High Court underscored that mere administrative directions and government orders are insufficient to eliminate caste-based discrimination in access to public resources such as drinking water; a fundamental change in societal mindset is indispensable. While appreciating the State’s swift compliance in installing public taps and ensuring equal water supply, the Court held that access to clean drinking water is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 and that authorities must act proactively rather than waiting for complaints.

7) Xerox Copy of Cheque Admissible as Secondary Evidence

Madras High Court in Mohammed Iqbal v. S. Manonmanian (2025), held that a Xerox copy of a cheque can be admitted as secondary evidence when the original cheque was earlier produced before the trial court, duly verified, and subsequently lost. The Court clarified that under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act [Section 60(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023], loss of the original document beyond the party’s control is a valid ground to rely on secondary evidence.

8) Legal Duty to Maintain Wife and Mother

The Madras High Court, in R. Ananda Prakash & Ors. v. A. Malarvizhi (2025), reaffirmed that a husband and sons cannot shirk their legal and moral obligation to maintain their wife and mother, respectively, under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS, 2023).

Upholding the Family Court’s order granting ₹21,000 per month as maintenance, the Court emphasised that maintenance is a measure of social justice meant to prevent destitution and ensure dignity, particularly for elderly dependents. Financial inconvenience cannot override this binding responsibility, and the amount awarded was found reasonable in light of rising living costs, leaving no ground for judicial interference.

9) 12-Year Delay in Serving Summons Exposes Systemic Failure

In Ramasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2025), the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court strongly criticised a shocking 12-year delay in serving summons in a criminal case instituted in 2013, holding it to be a collective failure of both the police and the judicial machinery. The Court noted that, despite the charge sheet being taken on file in 2013, summons were served only in June 2025, due to repeated, mechanical orders to “issue fresh summons” without verifying service or invoking statutory safeguards, such as substituted service.

10) Aadhaar Holders Cannot Be Denied the Right to Correction

The Madras High Court in P. Pushpam v. Director, UIDAI & Anr. (2025), held that every Aadhaar holder has a fundamental right to seek correction of personal details in Aadhaar records. The Court ruled that the right to update incorrect demographic information flows from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as Aadhaar has become the gateway to essential welfare benefits like pensions and subsidies.

Click here to browse Madras High Court judgments of 2025 with quick legal insights on Legal Bites.

Read Madras High Court 2025 judgments, which strengthen constitutional values and remain a valuable guide for staying legally informed and updated in the years ahead.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams