While deciding a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioner sought rechristening of “Tamil Valarchi Thurai” as “Tamil Membattu Thurai” and quashing of the impugned order dated 14122022 on the ground that the word “valarchi,” meaning growth or enrichment, could not be equated with “development,” the Division Bench of Manindra Mohan Shrivastava*, CJ., and G. Arul Murugan, J., dismissed the petition

Skip to content Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News CONNECT NAVIGATION HomeCase BriefsMadras High Court: Naming Of Public Departments Falls Solely Within Government Domain; Petition To Rechristen Tamil Development Department Dismissed Madras High Court: Naming of public departments falls solely within Government domain; Petition to rechristen Tamil Development Department dismissed “The present is not a case warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction, as the cause espoused is purely an administrative act for the experts in the field to ponder on and this Court lacks expertise in this regard.” Published on November 27, 2025By Editor Advertisement Madras High Court: While deciding a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioner sought rechristening of “Tamil Valarchi Thurai” as “Tamil Membattu Thurai” and quashing of the impugned order dated 14122022 on the ground that the word “valarchi,” meaning growth or enrichment, could not be equated with “development,” the Division Bench of Manindra Mohan Shrivastava*, CJ., and G. Arul Murugan, J., dismissed the petition and held that the naming and renaming of government departments is purely within the domain of the Government and cannot be undertaken by the High Court. The Court further noted that the issue was not of such gravitas that its non-consideration would impair society at large. Background: The petitioner earlier made a representation to the authorities requesting that the word “valarchi” be replaced with “membattu.” It was asserted that Tamil scholars have iterated that the word “development” cannot be equated with “valarchi.” The affidavit highlighted that “valarchi” means growth, increase, enrichment, while “development” connotes upliftment, betterment, higher state. The authorities rejected the request through proceedings dated 14-12-2022. After this rejection, the petitioner approached the Court. It was argued that the impugned order showed a lack of proper consideration and was administratively arbitrary. The respondents, however, defended the order, stating that the actions of the authorities were completely fair, without any bad intention or arbitrariness. Analysis and Decision: The Court emphasised that all issues raised by the petitioner were already considered by the respondent authorities, and the impugned order was passed after due consideration. However, the Court observed that although a vague assertion was made that the impugned order suffered from nonapplication of mind and administrative arbitrariness, no whit of material was placed on record to bolster the said plea. The Court highlighted that naming and re-naming of government departments is purely within the domain of the Government, and such a task cannot be undertaken by the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction, since the courts lack the expertise in this regard, and it is purely within governmental fiefdom. The Court also noted that the proceedings challenged were issued way back in 2022, but the petition was filed nearly three years later, showing an absence of compelling urgency. The Court emphasised that the issue involved was not of such gravitas that non-consideration would impair society at large. The Court stressed that a public interest litigation should espouse a cause to protect society and avoid deliberate peril arising out of governmental non-concern for social good and benefit. The Court observed that the present case did not warrant exercise of writ jurisdiction, as the cause espoused was purely an administrative act to be considered by experts in the field, and this Court lacked expertise in that regard. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, sans costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. [Muthu Subramaniam v. State of T.N., W.P. No. 43202 of 2025, decide on 14-11-2025] *Judgment authored by: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: N. Umapathi For the Respondents: Suresh Kumar, Additional Advocate General, assisted by M. Habeeb Rahman, Government Advocate Buy Constitution of India HERE Related Madras High Court dismisses PIL over Rahul Gandhi’s voter list fraud allegations; Petitioner fined Rs 1 Lakh September 13, 2025 In “High Courts” President appoints Justice Senthilkumar and Justice G. Arul Murugan as Permanent Judges of Madras High Court September 24, 2025 In “Appointments & Transfers” Senior-most judge Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, appointed as Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court July 30, 2022 In “Appointments & Transfers” Tags : administrative arbitrariness Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava compelling urgency government departments re-name Justice G. Arul Murugan Madras High Court rechristening social benefit Tamil Valarchi Thurai rename writ jurisdiction Leave a comment Post navigation PREVIOUS STORY SC issues major clarification on 3-year legal practice requirement for Judicial Officers appointed prior to its 20th May judgment NEXT STORY Requirement of the Consent of Non-Signatories in Appointment of the Arbitrator: A Continuing Enigma? Part II MOST READ 24 hours 7 days All time Events/Webinars News Law Commission celebrates 76th Constitution Day; inaugurates its social media handles Case Briefs High Courts Delhi HC protects well-known trade mark ‘GOLD FLAKE’; restrains use of mark ‘GOLD FLAME’ in sale of cigarettes Experts Corner Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas Reinvigorating Order 10: How Pre-Trial Examination Can Expedite Commercial Litigation Appointments & Transfers News Former Judge and Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar appointed as Chair for UN Commission of Inquiry on Occupied Palestinian Territory Call For Papers Law School News Call For Papers | Two Days International Seminar On “Data Protection In The Ai Era: Bridging Gaps Between Law, Policy, And Technology” | Law Mantra Trust | Ciipr, Rgnul | 19th & 20th December, 2025 Case Briefs High Courts “DNA test cannot be ordered in routine manner”: Allahabad High Court rejects husband’s plea challenging child’s paternity Join The Discussion Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.  Subscribe to our Newsletter Get weekly latest news and updates in your e-mail News Submissions blog@scconline.com Article Submissions articles@scconline.com Download SCC Online App for Android Users/IOS Users Disclaimer : The content of this Blog are for informational purposes only and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. The views expressed are not the personal views of EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. and do not constitute legal advice. The contents are intended, but not guaranteed, to be correct, complete, or up to date. EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. disclaims all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether arising from negligence, accident or any other cause. © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. EN × …