The Madras High Court has directed the Patent Office to allow an inventor to demonstrate a working prototype of his invention, observing that an invention should not be allowed to go to waste without practical testing.

The case arose from the rejection of a patent application titled “Solar Supplemental Power Source” under Section 3(a) of the Patents Act, on the ground that it was frivolous and contrary to established natural laws.

The invention claimed to generate electricity without sunlight by using gravitational and buoyant forces.

While finding no apparent error in the rejection, the Court directed the Patent Office to allow the demonstration and decide thereafter.

[Kannan Gopalakrishnan v. Controller of Patents]

The Madras High Court invoked Prophet Muhammad’s teaching that a worker must be paid before his sweat dries, while directing a municipal corporation to settle pending legal fees of its former standing counsel.

Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed that principles of fairness in labour jurisprudence apply equally to professional services such as legal work.

While noting procedural lapses and some delay on the part of the lawyer, the Court held that the corporation could not indefinitely withhold legitimate dues.

It directed payment of the pending fees within two months, without interest, and also flagged concerns over disproportionate public spending on select law officers at the cost of others.

The Madras High Court suggested that an audit be conducted into fees paid to government law officers, observing that public funds should not be distributed to a favoured few without accountability.

The Court noted that Additional Advocate Generals were appearing even in small matters that could be handled by junior government counsel, raising concerns over the prudent use of public money.

The observations were made while hearing a petition by a former standing counsel of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation seeking the settlement of pending fee claims.

While clarifying that courts cannot enquire into the quantum of fees paid to senior counsel, the Court emphasised that good governance requires public money to be drawn in a measured, transparent, and responsible manner.

[P Thirumalai v. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation]

The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to take a final decision on framing a Standard Operating Procedure for granting permission to political meetings by January 5, 2026.

The Court noted that multiple political parties had submitted suggestions and objections and asked the State to frame the SOP after giving due consideration to all inputs.

It clarified that any party aggrieved by the final SOP would be at liberty to challenge it independently.

The direction was issued against the backdrop of public safety concerns, including incidents such as the Karur stampede.

The Madras HC has directed the Government of India to frame a comprehensive policy framework to provide legal assistance to Indian citizens abroad. 

Relying on Article 38(1) of the Constitution and the doctrine of parens patriae, the Court observed that the State has a constitutional obligation to intervene when citizens are unable to secure their rights outside India.

The observations came while hearing a plea by a woman whose husband died while working in Cameroon after his foreign employer allegedly failed to honour a compensation undertaking.

The Court directed the Centre to take a proactive role, including diplomatic and legal interventions, and to formulate a structured policy to address such cases.

[Malarvizhi v. Secretary, Government of India]

The Tamil Nadu government has told the Madras High Court that the December 1 order directing the lighting of a lamp atop the Thiruparankundram hills amounted to creating a “new religious tradition” without any legal or historical basis.

The State argued that for over a century, the Karthigai Deepam has been lit only at the Uchi Pillaiyar temple and that there was no evidence to support lighting it at a new location near the dargah.

It further submitted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to invent religious customs and warned that changing long-standing practices could disturb public order.

The matter will be heard further on December 15.

The Madras High Court held that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department can investigate mismanagement in denominational temples receiving public donations.

The Court noted that while the right to manage religious affairs is protected under Article 26, financial irregularities and property mismanagement must be examined when contributions come from the public.

The ruling arose from a dispute over a lease of temple property at Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimma Perumal Temple, with concerns that the lease terms were unfavorable.

The Court directed the HR&CE Commissioner to appoint a senior officer to complete the inquiry within four months and stay new property transactions until then.

[KJ Renuka v. K Raghavendhar Karthik & Ors.]

The Madras High Court upheld a single-judge order permitting devotees to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp at the Deepathoon on Thirupparankundram, a site earlier confirmed to lie on temple land.

The appeal arose after the District Collector and Police Commissioner challenged a follow-up order allowing devotees themselves to light the lamp with CISF protection, issued when the first order was not implemented.

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, noting deliberate non-compliance by State officials and holding that central force assistance is lawful where State machinery fails.

It also observed that the appeal appeared aimed at avoiding contempt.

[KJ Praveenkumar, IAS & Anr. v. Rama Ravikumar & Anr.]

The Madras High Court has ruled that an individual's right to freedom cannot disrupt the peace and sanctity of temple premises, particularly during religious festivals.

The bench rejected the argument of the Vadagalai sect (Northern cult), which argued that giving ceremonial rights to the southern cult would infringe their rights under Article 25 and 26.

The court emphasized that while fundamental rights are essential, they must be exercised responsibly without disturbing the tranquility of places of worship or interfering with others' religious practices.

The court noted that the order of the single judge, in effect, interfered with the rights granted by way of earlier litigation and set aside the same.

[PB Rajahamsam v. S Narayanan]

The Madras High Court has permitted the return of stolen property to its owner through courier services, eliminating the requirement for physical court appearances.

The court was taking up a suo motu proceeding registered to implement the pilot project formulated by the Committee of the Supreme Court of India for the disposal of criminal cases.

Recognizing the practical difficulties victims face in reclaiming recovered items, the court streamlined the process, including verification of ownership via video by the investigating officer.

The court also allowed the funds available with the Legal Services Authority could be spent on the courier expense, and the same can be claimed from the State of Tamil Nadu.

[Suo Motu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.]

The Madras High Court, in a Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and S. Sounthar, upheld the Thengalai (Southern Cult) community’s exclusive right to perform the Adhiapaka Mirasi (ceremonial worship) at Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple in Kancheepuram.

The Court dismissed challenges from the Vadagalai (Northern Cult) community seeking to recite their own mantram and prabandham during official worship.

Drawing on over 200 years of prior judicial rulings, it held that historical injunctions do not violate fundamental rights, citing public order and denominational rights under Articles 25 and 26.

The Court directed the temple’s executive trustee to enforce prior decrees, emphasizing that individual worship cannot infringe the ritual rights of office holders. 

[Rajahamsam v. Narayanan]

The Madras High Court has vacated the stay that halted Tamil Nadu’s plan to develop an eco-park on the former Madras Race Club land.

The Bench observed that Chennai urgently needs green spaces to reduce flooding and improve air quality, observing that Delhi’s recent pollution crisis highlights how rising AQI can disrupt life and endanger vulnerable groups.

Calling the eco-park “the need of the hour,” the Court allowed the State to resume works aimed at water storage, flood mitigation and creating essential lung space.

[State of Tamil Nadu and anr v. Madras Race Club and Ors.]

The Madras High Court ruled that an arbitral tribunal lacks jurisdiction to lift the corporate veil or hold a non-signatory company liable.

The Court observed that doing so violates the consent-based framework under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which confines arbitration strictly to parties who have agreed to arbitrate. 

The dispute arose when the arbitral tribunal attempted to treat a third company as the petitioner’s “alter ego” and extend liability under an MOU.

The Court held that veil-lifting is strictly within the domain of courts, and only in exceptional cases involving fraud, or statutory provisions.. 

[Sugesan Transport Pvt Ltd v. E.C. Bose & Company Pvt Ltd & Ors.]

The Madras High Court held that using a company’s brand name as a hashtag to identify a director does not amount to trademark disparagement.

Justice N Senthilkumar observed that hashtags merely group content, and posts relating to personal disputes cannot be treated as attacks on the business unless they specifically target the company’s commercial reputation.

Madhampatty Pakashala claimed a ₹11.21 crore loss due to videos tagged with its name, but the Court found no material showing cancellations or any intent to harm the brand. 

As no prima facie case was made out, the request for injunction and removal of content was rejected.

[Madhampatty Thangavelu v. Joy Crizildaa]