Keeping Pace with Legal Change
The Madras high court has formally taken the first step towards the theatrical release of the long awaited movie Akhanda 2. This ruling was arrived at following a major court tussle that was settled amicably between the warring parties in the case.
The President of India has also taken a firm stand in a long protracted judicial administrative issue on a High Court judge. Justice J. Nisha Banu, who is a current judge at the Madras High Court, has been officially instructed to take her new position in the Kerala High Court.
A recent pronouncement by the Madras High Court has brought back a giant legal controversy in the Indian movie music sector. The case is between two leading sides, the Sreedevi Video Corporation and the music giant Saregama India Limited. This case has been long thought to be closed and/or thrown out of court, but it was recently reintroduced with the new order of the court.
Marking a major development of recent interest, Madras High Court has given a major legal thrust into the intellectual property…
Introduction At the end of July 2025, the Madras High Court strongly condemned eight retired judges who asked the court…
Justice M.S. Janarthanam, a former judge of the Madras high court led the battle to protect the 69% reservation policy of Tamil Nadu. The laws of social justice in the state and beyond were substantially fortified through his law practice with regards to the sub-quotas and rights of backward classes.
This article examines a recent judgement of the Madras high court which indicates the importance of giving rights to mentally incompetent dependents to obtain their family pension without any undue obstacles. It focuses on how the court has interpreted the rules on pensions, its very tough stand against bureaucratic delays in the delivery of goods and services and its demand of a humane nature as directed by the constitution. The case brings out the importance of the judiciary in supporting social welfare provisions for vulnerable groups in society.
The present article evaluates an important Madras High Court ruling which approached various controversies involving Thiruparankundram Hill, which is a holy place for people of different religions. The court discussed matters of religious practices, land rights and civic facilities, with a strong focus on the historic judicial precedents and the constitutional right to religious freedom and ensuring interfaith harmony.
Despite the fact that there is no legislation governing marriages between people of the same gender, the Madras High Court has ruled that LGBTQ+ couples have the right to have kids. During a separate proceeding, the Calcutta High Court granted Sharmishta Panoli temporary release, raising concerns about the procedural errors that led to her detention for making contentious comments on social media.
Following a peaceful resolution between the two parties, the First Information Report (FIR) that had been filed against a man who was accused of gazing at a lady on a flight was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. The court came to the conclusion that pursuing the lawsuit would be pointless and emphasized the significance of resolving disagreements of this kind by mutual agreement wherever possible.
