Dismissed¶26

M.Chelliah v. Union of India

Madras HC8 Apr 2025WP/1004/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court order dated 08.04.2025; single judge (Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy); W.P.No.1004 of 2024 with W.M.P.No.1050 of 2024; petitioner M. Chelliah (counsel Richardson Wilson); respondents Union of India / MeitY and Google LLC (counsel Rajesh Vivekanandan, Deputy Solicitor General of India); prayer concerned restraint on blocking, masking, suspension or termination of petitioner's YouTube channel "Kulukkai" (@ Kulukkai) save in accordance with law after notice and hearing; writ petition under Article 226 Constitution of India dismissed as infructuous on petitioner's own counsel's submission; no costs; no merits adjudication, no statutory analysis beyond enabling reference, no precedents cited.

What the court decided

M.Chelliah Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.1004 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.04.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.No.1004 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.1050 of 2024

M.Chelliah

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.Union of India Rep.by its Secretary to Government Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) Electronics Niketan, 6, Lodhi Road CGO Complex, Pragati Vihar New Delhi, Delhi – 110 003.

¶11

2.Google LLC Rep.by its Resident Grievance Officer, India Suraj Rao Google LLC India Liaison Office Unit Unit No.26

¶12

The Executive Centre, Level 8, DLF Centre Sansad Marg, Cannaught Place New Delhi – 110 001. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1^st and 2^nd respondent from

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.1004 of 2024

¶16

in any way blocking, masking, suspending or terminating the petitioner's YouTube Channel titled “Kulukkai” having Channel ID @ Kulukkai or videos contained therein, except in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass such further or other orders.

¶17

For the Petitioner : Mr.Richardson Wilson

¶18

For the Respondents : Mr.Rajesh Vivekanandan Deputy Solicitor General of India

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed to forbear the 1^st and 2^nd respondent from in any

¶21

way blocking, masking, suspending or terminating the petitioner's YouTube Channel titled “Kulukkai” having Channel ID @ Kulukkai or videos contained therein, except in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶22

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that pending Writ Petition, the prayer made in this Writ Petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, he prayed for the Writ Petition to be dismissed.

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.1004 of 2024

¶26

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the associated miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

08.04.2025

¶28

Jer Neutral citation : Yes / No

¶29

¶30

The Secretary to Government Union of India Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) Electronics Niketan, 6, Lodhi Road CGO Complex, Pragati Vihar New Delhi, Delhi – 110 003.

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.1004 of 2024

¶34

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

Jer

W.P.No.1004 of 2024

08.04.2025

Page 4 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Chelliah v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M.Chelliah v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murali Radhakrishnan Vs the Regional Passport Officer

M.Madeswaran, Vs M.Kabir and Another

Santhoshkumar Babu Vs T.Prabhu Shankar, I.a.S., and Another

P.Radhakrishnan Vs the Secretary

R.Gurusamy Vs the Chief Executive Officer

A.Noorjahan Vs the Inspector General of Registration