Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge | Justice R. Mahadevan

Born on 10-06-1963, in Chennai, Justice R. Mahadevan has had a remarkable legal career characterised by dedication, expertise, and significant contributions to the judiciary. His journey from a law graduate in Chennai to a Supreme Court Judge is a story of commitment, expertise, and unwavering dedication to the field of law.

Early Life and Education

Justice Mahadevan completed his law degree at the prestigious Madras Law College. Upon graduation, he was enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in 1989.¹ This marked the beginning of a career that would span over two decades of legal practice and service

Legal Practice

For 25 years, Justice Mahadevan practiced in various branches of law, with a particular specialization in indirect taxes, customs, and Central Excise matters. His practice covered civil, criminal, and writ sides, demonstrating versatility and profound understanding of diverse legal fields.²

Justice Mahadevan served in several notable government positions³, including —

• Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for the Government of Tamil Nadu

• Additional Central Government Standing Counsel

• Senior Panel Counsel for the Government of India at the Madras High Court

These roles highlighted his expertise and trustworthiness inrepresenting both the State and Central Governments in crucial legal matters.

Judicial Career

Justice Mahadevan was elevated as a Judge of the Madras High Court in 2013⁴ and brought his extensive experience and deep legal acumen to the bench. On 24-05-2024, Justice Mahadevan took over as the Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court⁵ as a testament to his leadership and judicial capabilities. His tenure at Madras High Court was marked by fair and judicious decisions, furthering the cause of justice in the State.

*Did You Know? Justice Mahadevan has disposed of more than 96,000 cases during his 11-year stint as Judge of Madras High Court, including 6,512 cases in just 55 days at the Madurai Bench.⁶

The Supreme Court Collegium comprising of Dr. Justice DY Chandrachud, CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B R Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, took due note of the fact that Justice Mahadevan ranks third in the order of presently serving judges of the Madras High Court including the Judges who have been posted as Chief Justices outside the Madras High Court. The Collegium further noted that, “Justice Mahadevan belongs to a backward community from the State of Tamil Nadu. His appointment will bring diversity to the Bench” and recommended his name for appointments as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.⁷ In recognition of his exemplary service and profound legal insights, Justice Mahadevan was appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India and took oath of office on 18-07-2024.⁸

Notable Judgments

In Gokul Abimanyu v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 2504, a writ petition filed for directing the Bar Council of India (‘BCI’) to reduce the application fee for All-India Bar Examination (AIBE’) conducted by BCI, based on the petitioner’s representation dated 19-01-2024, the division bench of R. Mahadevan, ACJ. and G.R. Swaminathan, J. has said that unlike in the case of enrolment fee, there is no statutory provision which prescribes any sum towards examination fee. Further, the Court noted that only a sum of Rs.3,500/- is demanded from the candidates and said that it is not an exorbitant amount.

In A. Aashifa Begum v. Khader Beevi, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 365, an appeal instituted against the order passed by the Court below, wherein the Court granted visitation rights to the grandparents as an interim measure, the division bench of R. Mahadevan* and Mohammed Shaffiq, JJ. has modified the order of the Judge, granting visitation rights to the grandparents, by restricting it to once every month, i.e., the first Saturday from 2.00 pm to 6.00 pm at the Child Care Centre attached to the Family Court in Chennai. It directed the mother (appellant) to personally bring and leave the child for visitation.

In Shri Harish v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 280, writ petitions praying to abstain the State from conducting the Formula 4 Indian Championship and Indian Racing League Night Street Race at the Chennai Formula Street Circuit, Island Grounds or at any other place within the Chennai City limit and calling for the records, by which the Tamil Nadu Government had disbursed a sum of Rs.15 crores in favour of Department of Youth Welfare and Sports Development (‘DYWSD’)for conducting the race, the division bench of R. Mahadevan* and Mohammed Shaffiq, JJ. while permitting the Formula 4 Race to be conducted in the Chennai Racing Circuit on the dates to be decided by the State Government in consultation with the stakeholders, gave the following directions:

1. The State Government was directed to ensure that the street race in the 3.7 km as stipulated, shall be carried on, with highest degree of public safety and avoiding inconvenience to the public, especially the in-patients of the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Madras Medical College, and Omandurar Government Multi-speciality Hospital. It suggested installing necessary silencing equipment like sound silence panels/acoustic sound panel for noise control in the hospitals during the time of the racing events.

2. The Racing Promotions Private Limited (‘RPPL’) was directed to ensure that all public viewers will be provided with necessary protective gear for their safety during the Race.

3. The RPPL was directed to reimburse the expenditure made by the State Government of Rs. 42 crores from the public exchequer, to them, before the event.

4. The State Government was directed to ensure that RPPL or anyone should deposit in advance (prior to next year and the upcoming third year’s event) the stipulated expenditure of Rs.15 crores for the upcoming two years for holding the Street Circuit in Chennai.

In Addl. Commissioner of Customs v. N.C. Alexander, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6661, an appeal filed by Customs Department under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the interim order dated 17-08-2023, wherein the Court has granted an order of interim direction to Customs Department to assess and release of the goods covered under the bill dated 26-06-2023, a division bench of R. Mahadevan* and Mohammed Shaffiq, JJ. has directed the Customs Department to release the subject goods (fresh apples from New Zealand) on furnishing of bank guarantee of Rs. 2,25,000/- towards differential duty, by the respondent.

In G. Subramaniam v. K. Phanindra Reddy, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 720, a bunch of Letters Patent Appeals (‘LPA’) filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside order passed by a Single Bench in contempt petitions (‘CP’), wherein previous directions issued for holding public procession by appellants were altered, the Division Bench of R. Mahadevan* and Mohammad Shaffiq, JJ., while setting aside the same, directed the appellants to approach the State authorities with three different dates of their choice for the purpose of holding the route-march/peaceful procession and further directed the State authorities to grant permission to the appellants on one of the chosen dates out of the three.

In R. Rajesh v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 666, a writ petition filed by an Advocate praying to declare that the impugned order of the National Company Law Board imposing dress code for Advocates for appearance before the Tribunal as ultra vires, null and void, and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, the division bench of R. Mahadevan* and Mohammed Shaffiq, JJ. held that the impugned order is without authority and is illegal. The Court held that Tribunals have no authority to issue instructions determining dress code for appearance of Advocates.

In People’s Watch v. Home Secretary,⁹ a petition filed praying to direct the respondents to appoint trained and skilled non-official board of visitors to jails as per Rule 507 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 for visiting each of the Central Jails and Sub Jails to address the grievance of prisoners and helping the prisoner administration on the development of correctional administration, the division bench of R. Mahadevan* and J. Sathya Narayana Prasad, JJ., held that prison administration needs to be reformed to create a better environment and prison culture to ensure that prisoners enjoy their right to dignified life and issued directions to the respondent authorities in that regard.

In S. Annapoorni v. K. Vijay, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4367, a case relating to the issue of concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court over matters of child custody and guardianship with the family Courts, the five-judge bench of P.N. Prakash, N. Anand Venkatesh, R. Mahadevan, M. Sundar, A.A. Nakkiran, JJ. in a 3:2 majority decision, held that jurisdiction of the High Court on its original side over matters of child custody and guardianship is not ousted in view of the provisions of Explanation (g) to Section 7(1) read with Sections 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (FCA) and the decision in Mary Thomas v. K.E. Thomas, 1989 SCC OnLine Mad 268 continues to be a good law.

In Fenner India Ltd. v. CIT, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 2923, an appeal a Division Bench of R. Mahadevan and Sathya Narayan Prasad, JJ. dismissed the tax appeal holding that guarantee commission as well as royalty must be excluded from the business profit for the purpose of calculation of deduction under Section 80-HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

In B. Ramkumar Adityan v. Collector, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4591, a writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to obtain a declaration from the organisers of all Dusshera Groups and Sound Hire Service Providers to prohibit singing and playing any non-devotional songs and ‘Kuthu Pattu’ during Dusshera festival at Arultharum Mutharamman Thirukovil, Thoothukudi District, the division bench of R. Mahadevan* and J. Sathya Narayana Prasad, JJ., directed the police authorities to prohibit obscene and vulgar dance performance during Dusshera Festival.

“This Court cannot restrain anybody from participating in any such functions. Tv and Cinema actors and actresses are also entitled to take part in such functions. This Court can take note of the fact that invariably the said programmes are full of cinema motifs and themes. But, that is a part of popular culture and there cannot be any intervention in such matters. But, vulgarity and obscenity cannot be displayed in the name of arts.”

In V.S.J. Dinakaran v. CIT, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4076, an appeal against dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that no error is found in the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax’s order as the proceedings under Section 24 of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 requires a mere prima facie opinion as to the benami nature of the transaction which can be fairly made out in the case, a Division Bench of R. Mahadevan* and Sathya Narayana Prasad, JJ., upheld the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, to continue with the provisional property attachment till the Adjudicating Authority decides the Benami nature of such property in accordance with law.

In M. Seetharaman v. Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Dept., 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 5656, a writ petition filed under Article 226 praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take effective measures to prohibit the possession and usage of Android Cell Phones inside the Sri Subramania Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District, a Division Bench of R. Mahadevan* and J. Sathya Narayana Prasad JJ., directed the respondent authorities to implement the restrictions imposed for the usage of cell phones by the priest, devotees, public and others inside the temple; appoint self-help groups to supervise the usage of cell phones; and set up security counters for deposit of cell phones.

In K R Raja v. State of T.N., 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 5473, a case filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to take necessary steps to ensure the easy accessibility of all the tourist places, especially Coutrallam Water Falls in Tirunelveli, State of Tamil Nadu, for the persons with disability, in accordance with Section 29 under Chapter V of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, a Division Bench of R. Mahadevan and J. Sathya Narayana Prasad JJ., directs the Government to devise a programme in consultation with expert bodies, which includes persons with disabilities, to make tourist destinations in Tamil Nadu accessible for the disabled in accordance with the standards of accessibility as formulated under Section 40 of the RPwD Act and other applicable guidelines and prepare and publish a travel guide of disability-friendly and accessible tourist destinations.

In Lalchand Bhimraj v. CESTAT, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 3930, a case where show cause notices were sent by Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Respondent 4) for short collection of duty due to non-levy of anti-dumping duty in terms of Section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962, a Division Bench of R. Mahadevan* and J. Sathya Narayana Prasad, JJ., placed reliance on the doctrine of ‘substantial compliance’ to hold that the notices are not barred by limitation.

In S. Krishnamurthy v. Manivasan, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 3525, a batch of petitions was filed seeking validity of the Government Order ‘GO (Ms) No. 83 dated 23-11-2016 and seeking implementation of the same, a Division Bench of R. Mahadevan* and J Sathya Narayan Prasad, JJ., upheld the constitutional validity of Government Order ‘GO (Ms) No. 83’ issued by the Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 safeguarding the interests of elderly and senior citizens.

In K. Sathyabal v. Chairman & Members, Election Committee, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4861, a review application filed to review the order passed by this Court, the division bench of R. Mahadevan* and Mohammed Shaffiq, JJ., while dismissing the review application, has observed that the conduct of the election with the existing byelaws in a transparent and fair manner is the need of the hour, which has been delayed unnecessarily for nearly four years, thus, the election shall be completed within a period of 90 days. Further, it was observed that the Bar is undoubtedly the backbone of the judicial system and the supporting pillar of the Bench without which the delivery of justice is a chimerical theory that cannot translate into fruition.

While deciding upon the challenge to the grant of ‘Classical’ status to languages like Telugu, Kannada, Odiya, Malayalam etc., in R. Gandhi v. Secretary to Government, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 8898, the Division Bench of S.K. Kaul, C.J., and R. Mahadevan, J., refused to interfere with the declaration of granting ‘classical’ status to the aforementioned languages stating that the Court will not convert itself into a forum to decide such issues.

Deliberating upon the grim situation that how the courts have to face cases related to juvenile crimes, matrimonial disputes, and other disputes revealing the moral depreciation in the society in S. Rajarathinam v. Secretary to Government, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 2373, a single-judge bench of R. Mahadevan,* J., directed the Government to include 108 Chapters/ Adhigarams of Thirukkural (Arathupal and Porutpal) in the curriculum of students between VI- XII Standards in the syllabus for the next academic year, because one of the important objective of education is to build a nation of moral values.

“Moral values are more important that other values. Once, the moral values are lost, it is only a matter of time, before the person falls, despite possessing all other qualities, which may earn in name, fame, power and money. If Thirukkual is taught with all its avenues and dimensions elborately, the students would be equipped with all the facets of life, the probable problems and the solutions. The couplets about friendship, hard work, good character, patience, tolerance and confidence will guide them through, even the most difficult of times. Thirukkural will give them the inner strength to withstand any storm.”

In Refex Energy Ltd. v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 4912, a petition involving the constitutionality of Section 18 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 vis-à-vis Article 14 of the Constitution and whether the Parliament can legislate in respect of Micro, Small and Medium Scale industries as the subject falls within the scope of Entry 24 of List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, the Division Bench of S.K. Kaul, CJ., and R. Mahadevan, J., dismissed the petition and held that Section 18 of the MSMED Act does not violate Article 14 with respect to the right to approach the courts for dispute settlement. The Court further held that the present case falls within the purview of Entry 52 of List I of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution by way of which the Parliament can legislate in respect of the industries in the manufacturing or production sector, as well as the industries engaged in the service sector.

In Advocate’s Forum for Social Justice v. State of T.N., 2016 SCC Online Mad 4900, a writ petition filed regarding increasing alcohol related problems in the State of Tamil Nadu, a division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of S.K. Kaul, CJ., and R. Mahadevan, J., expressed concern about (a) the consumption of alcohol by the under aged sector and (b) poor families diverting their earnings towards purchase of alcohol and directed the State of Tamil Nadu to form a Committee within 2 weeks to look into the problem and take measures to reduce alcohol consumption in the State.

While deciding upon the present writ petition in T. Rajakumari v. Govt. of T.N., 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 8992, whereby it was prayed that a Writ of Declaration be issued, declaring that the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) (Six Months Training) Rules, 2014 is beyond the scope of the Pre-conceptional and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, and inconsistent with the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 and Regulations, the Division Bench of S.K. Kaul, C.J., and R. Mahadevan, J., held that once any High Court has declared the invalidity of a Central Act, it cannot be applied selectively in other States because in absence of a final decision by the Supreme Court on the validity of the provisions of PNDT Act and Rules, there is no question of applicability of the provisions struck down by the Delhi High Court.

*Judge who has penned the judgment.