Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 94 NOMINAL INDEX Kottaisamy and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52 C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 53 Rathinam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 54 Mukesh Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 55 Mr....
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
NOMINAL INDEX
Kottaisamy and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
Rathinam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
Mukesh Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
Mr. D. Kaliyamoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
Pradeep Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
M/s KVN Productions v. Central Board of Film Certification and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
M/s. Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. v M/s. Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
Jawahar Rajan v The Regional Passport Officer and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Zee Media Corporation Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
High Court Of Madras v. Ashok Surana, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd v. The Appellate Authority and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
Bhagavathiraj v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
N.Kumar v. District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
Joseph Raja v Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
N Ganesh Agarwal v. The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department & Ors. v. K. Marimuthu & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
The Accountant General v. M Radhakrishnan and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
S Muneeswaran and Another v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
Government of Tamil Nadu and Others v. M Rajesh Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
Nagarajan v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
M/s. Seyadu Beedi Company v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
Tamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam v The Chief Election Commissioner and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
KMC College of Law v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
Under Secretary to Government and Others v. Dr Ajitha and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
Sowdhamani v. The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
N Samaran v. The Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
KS Balakrishnan v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
K. Athinarayanan v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
M/s. Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Election Commission of India and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
V Shiva v. The Inspector General of Registration and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
The Secretary to Government, Education Department & Others v. N.K. Shankar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
Union of India and Others v. B Shankar Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
MIOT Hospitals Private Limited v. Dr.Balaraman Palaniappan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
Chellamanickam v. The Principle Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
Vaiko v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
B Shyam and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust and another v. Government of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
Mrs Magitha Anna Christy v. State Human Rights Commission and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
M Kalaiselvi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
C. Ve. Shanmugam v. The Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
MS Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
VBR Menon v. The Chief Controller of Explosives and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
REPORTS
Case Title: Kottaisamy and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) recently imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the accused booked under the POCSO Act after finding that the name of the survivor/victim was explicitly mentioned by their counsel in the cause title of the criminal petition.
A bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri strongly condemned the conduct of the petitioners' counsel and further directed that the said amount be paid to the survivor.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea By Actor Vijay Challenging 1.5 Crore Income Tax Penalty
Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Actor Vijay challenging the Rs. 1.5 crore penalty imposed on him by the Income Tax Department for undisclosed income of Rs 15 crore in the financial year 2015-16.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that the show cause notice had been issued within the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
As the court found no infirmity in the issuance of the notice, it refrained from examining the other aspects of the matter.
At the same time, the court granted liberty to Vijay to assail the notice and the consequential order before the appellate tribunal on grounds other than limitation.
Case Title: Rathinam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
The Madras High Court has observed that Kumbabishekam festivals in a temple cannot be conducted by an individual, especially when there are multiple communities residing in a village.
Justice S Srimathy thus directed the fit person appointed to the Sri Muniyandi Swamy temple, Sri Ayyanar Swamy temple, Sri Karuppa Swamy temple and Sri Muthumariamman Swamy Temple to form a committee consisting of persons from each community for conducting the Kumbabishekam festival at the temples.
The court remarked that first honour should not be given to any community and there should not be any discrimination.
Case Title: Mukesh Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
The Madras High Court recently observed that the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act would not come into play with respect to the acceptance of bond for appearance.
Justice L Victoria Gowri remarked that Section 37 comes into play only when the liberty of a person from custody is sought and not when the accused is merely securing appearance pursuant to the summons.
Case Title: Mr. D. Kaliyamoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
A full bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that resignation from service, even if for medical reasons, would result in forfeiture of past service and such a person would not be entitled to pensionary benefits.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy and Justice C Kumarappan held as under,
“'Resignation' from a service or post as per Rule 23 of The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 entails forfeiture of past service. Therefore, resignation from service even on medical or health grounds entails forfeiture of past service. The grounds based on which resignation is sought is immaterial and resignation shall only mean forfeiture of past service,” the court said.
Case Title: Pradeep Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
The Madras High Court recently observed that when a recovery under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act is made from the shirt pocket of the accused, it would be seen as a personal search, and compliance with the statutory mandate under Section 50 of the Act would be mandatory during such a search.
Highlighting the importance of following statutory procedure under the Act, Justice Victoria Gowri noted that NDPS prosecutions are not ordinary and the statutory safeguards are not empty formalities but minimum assurance to ensure that the powers were exercised responsibly and legally.
Madras High Court Permits 'Jana Nayagan' Movie Producer To Withdraw Plea Against CBFC
Case Title: M/s KVN Productions v. Central Board of Film Certification and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (February 10) permitted KVN Productions, producers of Vijay starrer "Jana Nayagan" movie to withdraw their plea challenging the certification process of the Central Board of Film Certification.
Justice PT Asha permitted a request made by Vijayan Subramaniam, advocate for the production company.
The production company had sent a letter to the High Court registry expressing its intention to withdraw the case. The production company had informed the court that it had decided to go ahead with the review process and thus did not wish to continue with the litigation. Following the letter, the case was posted today under the caption "for withdrawal".
Madras High Court Directs Producers Of Kochadaiyaan Movie To Pay ₹2.52 Crore Towards Unpaid Debt
Case Title: M/s. Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. v M/s. Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
The Madras High Court has directed Mediaone Global Entertainment, the production house engaged in the production of Rajnikanth starrer “Kochadaiyaan” movie, to pay Rs. 2.52 Crore towards unpaid debts.
Though Justice Sunder Mohan observed that neither the production house nor the complainant had proved their case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court highlighted that the purpose of the law was to compensate the complainant. The court also noted that the alleged cheque was issued in 2014 and the court had to adopt a course to secure ends of justice.
Case Title: Jawahar Rajan v The Regional Passport Officer and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
A full bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that renewal or reissue of a passport should be considered in the same manner as a fresh issue, and prior permission from the court would be necessary in case of pendency of criminal case.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran, Justice S Srimathy, and Justice KK Ramakrishnan was answering a reference made to it by a single judge in view of conflicting decisions by two division benches.
The court thus concluded that the restrictions contained in the Act apply not only to fresh applications but also for re-issuance and renewal. The court noted that a person facing criminal proceedings is not absolutely disentitled from getting a passport but it was subject to the permission of the criminal court where the case was pending.
Case Title: Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Zee Media Corporation Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
The Madras High Court has asked cricketer Mahendra Singh Dhoni to pay Rs 10 lakh for translating old CDs involved in a Rs. 100 crore defamation suit filed by him over allegedly defamatory content against him in connection with the 2013 IPL betting scandal.
Justice RN Manjula noted that translating and transcribing the contents of the CD was a humongous task which would take the entire time of an Interpreter and Typist for almost 3 to 4 months. The court fixed the entire cost of the process and asked Dhoni to pay the charges since he was obligated as the plaintiff.
Madras High Court Finds Man Guilty Of Contempt For Accusing Sitting Judges Of 'Genocide'
Case Title: High Court Of Madras v. Ashok Surana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
The Madras High Court has found a man guilty of contempt of court for making scandalous allegations against sitting judges of the High Court, alleging that the judge had committed “genocide” and “crime against humanity”.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman, noted that the man had repeatedly made scandalising comments against more than 20 judges of the court and had made intemperate and unwarranted expression against the judiciary.
The court was taking up a suo motu contempt petition initiated against Ashok Surana. The suo motu was registered when Surana made serious comments against one of the judges who was presiding over the bench while hearing a petition filed by him. Surana had commented that the judge had committed genocide and crime against humanity on a scale unknown to mankind.
Case Title: Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd v. The Appellate Authority and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
The Madras High Court has criticised the Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society for not taking appropriate action on a sexual harassment complaint made by one of its woman employees.
Rejecting the society's argument that a writ petition would not be maintainable against the credit society, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy ruled that protecting women employees from sexual harassment at workplace was a public duty and thus the writ petitions would be maintainable.
In the process, the court also ended a 25 year old legal battle by the woman employee against the management and directed the management to pay retirement benefits to the employee along with 60% of the back wages.
Interest Of Child Paramount, Not Of Perpetrator: Madras High Court Affirms Joint Trial In POCSO Case
Case Title: Bhagavathiraj v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
The Madras High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by an accused under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act noting that there was no failure of justice merely because there was a joint trial.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima observed that when courts were dealing with matters of child abuse, they must apply the laws in the best interest of the child and not the interest of the perpetrators of the crime. In the present case, the court noted that the Special Court had rightly conducted joint trial against two accused who had committed the offence of sexual assault on a minor child, though separately.
Places Of Worship Act Does Not Protect Encroachment By Temple On Government Land: Madras High Court
Case Title: N.Kumar v. District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea by the Managing Trustee of Sri Arulmighu Raajakaliamman Temple in Ramanathapuram District of Tamil Nadu, claiming protection for the temple which was allegedly built on an encroached land.
Rejecting the claim that the ancient temple was protected under the Places of Worship Act, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the Act was only meant to protect the religious character of temples and not to protect a structure that was put up on Government land by encroaching.
Madras High Court Upholds Conviction Of Pastor For Sexually Assaulting Disabled Minor
Case Title: Joseph Raja v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
The Madras High Court recently upheld the conviction of a pastor for sexually assaulting a minor who had physical and intellectual disability.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima held that the circumstances, the testimony of victim, and failure of the accused to rebut the statutory presumption established his guilt.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by a pastor challenging his conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act by the Special court.
Case Title: N Ganesh Agarwal v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
A Madras High Court judge recently recused from hearing a case after All India Lawyers Association for Justice (AILAJ) alleged that a senior advocate had taken a sum of Rs 50 Lakh from the client in the name of bribing the judge for passing suitable orders.
Justice Nirmal Kumar recused from hearing the case and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for posting before an appropriate bench and for issuing appropriate orders to the Vigilance Cell so that an enquiry could be conducted and appropriate action could be taken.
Previous Service As Village Assistant Can't be Excluded For Pension : Madras HC
Case Name : The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department & Ors. v. K. Marimuthu & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan held that the service rendered as a full-time Village Assistant after 01.06.1995 cannot be treated as non-provincialised service. It must be fully counted along with Village Administrative Officer service for pensionary benefits.
It was noted by the court that the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 do not contain any definition for the expression “non-provincialised service”. It was observed by the Court that after the Village Assistants were appointed as per Government Order, they were treated as full-time employees. Therefore their service could not be termed as non-provincialised service.
It was held by the Court that the service rendered as Village Assistant does not constitute “non-provincialised service.” Therefore the respondents are entitled to have their entire service counted for pensionary benefits.
Case Title: The Accountant General v. M Radhakrishnan and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
The Madras High Court recently held that the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules prohibit contracting of a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that bigamous marriage was a grave misconduct under the service rules, warranting departmental action. Thus, the court ruled that the second wife's name could not be included in the Pension Payment Order even after the death of the first wife.
Case Title: S Muneeswaran and Another v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
The Madras High Court recently upheld the conviction and sentence of a couple for administering poison and killing their child with mental disorder.
While the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima sympathised with the parents and the difficulties that they may have faced to bring up the child, the court noted that the parents had a bounden duty to take care of their child whether the child was born with or without disabilities. The court also remarked that no one had the right to take law into their own hands and take another person's life.
Case Title: Government of Tamil Nadu and Others v. M Rajesh Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
The Madras High Court has reiterated that while promotion is not a fundamental right, the employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion.
"It is well settled principle of law that the promotion is not a fundamental right, however, consideration for promotion is the fundamental right," the court said.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan however, added that one could not expect mathematical precision from a Government department to consider posting the employee in a particular post to make him eligible for promotion. The court added that in such matters, one had to see if there was any motivated abnormal delay on the part of the Government Department.
Case Title: Nagarajan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
The Madras High Court has expressed shock over ancient temple properties being let out on rent by officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Department without taking steps to protect the structure.
Noting that the Joint Commissioner of the HR & CE was involved in the exploiting of the temple property for financial gain, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the tenants had no right to occupy or damage ancient structures in the temple based on illegal permission granted by the Joint Commissioner.
Case Title: M/s. Seyadu Beedi Company v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
The Madras High Court recently held that “beedi rollers” who have been employed through an intermediary agency would still be considered as employees under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
Justice K Surender thus refused to interfere with an order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, holding that the beedi rollers were liable to be enrolled as PF members. The court noted that the EPF Act was beneficial legislation, and though the company had adopted dubious methods to engage services of beedi rollers, it could not be said that they were not employees of the company.
Madras High Court Refuses Interim Relief To Political Parties Delisted By ECI
Case Title: Tamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam v The Chief Election Commissioner and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (18th February) refused to grant interim relief to political parties against their delisting by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that if any interim relief was to be granted, it would amount to allowing the main prayer itself. The court thus dismissed the interim relief plea filed by the parties and refused to stay ECI's decision or revoke the registration of the parties till the disposal of the case.
The parties – Tamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam, Manithaneya Makkal Katchi, and Manithaneya Jananayaga Katchi had approached the High Court challenging the order passed by the ECI on September 19, 2025, delisting 474 Registered Unrecognised Political Parties (RUPPs) and to revoke the deregistration/delisting of the parties.
Case Title: KMC College of Law v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
The Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of India to process applications filed by nine private law colleges seeking permission for additional intake starting from the academic year 2025-2026.
On the BCI's claim that there was no requirement for new Law Colleges in some areas, the bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that such a drastic decision could not be taken regarding the arena of need-know basis, in the absence of any data for judicial scrutiny.
Case Title: Under Secretary to Government and Others v. Dr Ajitha and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
The Madras High Court recently ruled against High Courts allowing mop-up counselling for vacant seats after the scheduled date for counselling is over.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan held that allowing such violation of schedules would open a Pandora's box and defeat the whole purpose of fixing timelines for admission.
The bench also noted that though the founding fathers of the Constitution did not place any limitation on the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the schedule for counselling and the last date of admission were prescribed by Establishment of Medical College Regulations (Amendment), 2025 and the courts could interfere in case of illegality only when the last date of admission was not over. The court added that when the last date of admission is over, the parties had to work out their remedy by approaching the Apex Court, which would decide the issue on a case-by-case basis.
Case Title: Sowdhamani v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
The Madras High Court recently quashed a case against a woman, who had posted comments online on a picture of minor girls in school uniform holding liquor bottles. In the comment, the woman discussed the nature of the administration being rendered by the political party in the State.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the offences as alleged were not made out and quashed the cases registered against the woman for offences under Sections 504, 505(1)(b), 153 of IPC along with Section 66E of the IT Act and Sections 74 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The court noted that the complaint, which was lodged by a person belonging to a political party, appeared to be one filed for political vindication.
Case Title: N Samaran v. The Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
The Madras High Court recently observed that the temple festivals conducted by the State through the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department could not perpetuate caste.
Justice Bharata Chakravarthy noted that the very purpose of India becoming a republic was to treat everyone equally. The court added that the endeavour of every authority in the country should be to annihilate caste and not to perpetuate the same. The court thus submitted that a temple festival, being conducted by the State, could not be allowed to perpetuate caste by using caste names in the invitations.
Case Title: KS Balakrishnan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
The Madras High Court recently observed that a person from the marginalised community cannot be denied access to public burial or cremation ground and the same is a criminal offence under the SC/ST Act.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan added that denying public burial or cremation ground to a person from marginalised community is a form of practicing untouchability which is prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution.
The Court also noted that the Act gave powers to the District Collector to issue directions whenever persons from marginalised community were treated unfairly. The court thus directed the District Collector of Erode to take action against persons who had allegedly levelled the graves of people belonging to the marginalised community.
Case Title: K. Athinarayanan v. The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
The Madras High Court on Friday (20th February) directed the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to register an FIR against Tamil Nadu Minister for Municipal Administration, Urban and Water Supply, KN Nehru, for alleged bribery in appointments to the Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAWS) Department, based on information shared by the Enforcement Directorate.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the ED had not just made a vague complaint, but had shared voluminous materials which showed that there was a prima facie case. The court added that even when a preliminary enquiry could be conducted by the State under Section 173 of the BNSS within 14 days, the State was only delaying the investigation.
Thus, noting that a probe by an independent agency was necessary, and noting that a prima face case had been made out, the court directed the DVAC to register a complaint and proceed with the investigation.
Case Title: M/s. Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Election Commission of India and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
The Madras High Court, on Friday (20th February), dismissed two writ petitions filed by Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) founder Dr. Ramadoss seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to declare him as the party's President and to freeze the "Mango" symbol for the upcoming assembly elections till the party disputes are settled.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the parties to work out their remedies before the civil court.
Ramadoss had filed the first writ petition seeking to quash an earlier communication sent by ECI to Anbumani informing that the party has been allotted “Mango” symbol for the upcoming 2026 elections. He also called upon the ECI to issue a fresh communication to Ramadoss's address. Ramadoss alleged that Anbumani had committed fraud on the ECI and created documents without any authority to mislead the ECI as if Anbumani continued to be the party president.
Case Title: V Shiva v. The Inspector General of Registration and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
The Madras High Court has held that the term “Family” under the Indian Stamp Act does not include grandparents and any settlement made by the grandchildren in favour of the grandparent would be chargeable as per the appropriate provisions.
Answering a reference made to it, the full bench of Justice SM Subramaniam, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy and Justice C Kumarappan held that the Act, being a fiscal and revenue generation law, had to be taken in its literal meaning and could not be given a restrictive or expansive meaning.
Case Name: The Secretary to Government, Education Department & Others v. N.K. Shankar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar held that the penalty cannot justify withholding promotion after punishment ends. Further the 'check period' concept is illegal after imposition of the punishment.
Referring to the judgment in DIG of Police & Another v. V. Rani, it was held by the Court that the concept of a check period after the expiry of a punishment is illegal and cannot be used to withhold promotional consideration.
It was further noted by the Court that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench had correctly granted the respondent notional promotion from 01.04.1987 and the consequential promotion thereafter. It was held by the Court that no error was apparent on the face of the record . With the aforesaid observations, the Review Application filed by the department was dismissed by the Division Bench.
Case Title: Union of India and Others v. B Shankar Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
The Madras High Court recently held that generating Tatkal tickets for out-of-turn passengers without collecting fare would be misconduct under the Railway Service Conduct Rules. The court thus found an employee guilty of issuing tickets to third parties and violating the norms for issuing tickets.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the employee had generated tickets based on reservation forms, which were not handed over to him across the counter and which were collected by him before his duty time. The court thus concluded that he had violated the provisions of the Railways Service Conduct Rules.
Case Title: MIOT Hospitals Private Limited v. Dr.Balaraman Palaniappan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a hospital cannot treat the doctors working with it as normal employees or restrain them from taking up employment at other hospitals post resignation.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the doctor is not like a workmen in a factory, or regular employees. The court remarked that doctors render their services to hospitals, and that hospitals would not be able to survive without such services.
The court also noted that the hospitals could not have "rivalry" among themselves as it was not similar to a commercial establishment. The court noted that the rivalry between hospitals itself was a misnomer since a hospital was an independent entity, running to serve patients and not a commercial business.
Case Title: Chellamanickam v. The Principle Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
The Madras High court recently rejected a man's request for a No Caste No Religion certificate, noting that the same could not be claimed without relinquishing the religion fiirst.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy of Madurai Bench noted that unless the religion was relinquished as per existing rites, there was no question of issuing a certificate. The court added that when there was no proof of relinquishing religion, it could not direct the authorities to issue a no caste no religion certificate.
Case Title: Vaiko v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (24th February) dismissed a plea filed by the General Secretary of Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) and former Rajya Sabha MP Vaiko, challenging a 2012 notification issued by the Central government banning the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar noted that the notification did not exist as on date and the court could not spend its judicial time on adjudicating an expired issue.
Case Title: B Shyam and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
The Madras High Court recently directed the Authorisation Committee of the Directorate of Medical Education and Research to grant approval for the kidney transplant of a law student from his maternal aunt's husband's brother.
Justice PT Asha observed that not every third-party donor has to be seen through the eyes of suspicion, and the Authorisation Committee only had to scrutinise whether the donation was backed by any commercial interest.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust and another v. Government of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the Thei District Collector, approved by the Principal District Judge, attaching the properties of an organisation that has been allegedly linked to the banned Popular Front of India (PFI).
Though the parties argued that they were not associated with PFI, the bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima noted that the PFI had used the premises of the petitioner to conduct Dawa work. The court also noted that the organisation's pamphlet and PFI's pamphlets contained the same contact number. Thus, the court opined that the notification, banning PFI and its member associations, would apply to the petitioner association also and it would be termed an unlawful association.
Case Title: Mrs Magitha Anna Christy v. State Human Rights Commission and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with an order passed by the State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu directing as Sub Inspector of Police to pay Rs 5 Lakh as compensation for custodial torture committed by her against a woman.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar also took note of the “arrogance” of the officer in not filing counter affidavit before the SHRC despite being given sufficient opportunities.
Noting the serious allegations against the officer and her failure to produce any records, the court concluded that the officer was not entitled to any indulgence by the court.
Periodical Medical Checkup Is Right Of Every Prisoner Under Article 21: Madras High Court
Case Title: M Kalaiselvi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
The Madras High Court recently observed that every prisoner has a right to periodical medical check-ups and the same forms part of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Kalaimathi observed that the prisoners are also persons whose care and custody is with the prison authorities and the State. The court noted that the State has a duty to care for the needs of persons with special disabilities.
The court thus directed the Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai, to holda master health check-up for all prisoners in the prison once in two years. The court took note of the Supreme Court's observation in Muruganantham's case, which emphasised that reasonable accommodation was not option but integral for any humane and just carceral system.
Case Title: C. Ve. Shanmugam v. The Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
The Madras High Court has closed a case registered by the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women against Rajya Sabha MP C Ve Shanmugam for alleged derogatory comments made by him against women.
The woman's commission had initiated the case based on a complaint that in one of his speeches to the party cadres, Shanmugam had stated that the present Government may even announce one wife free to each citizen.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira noted that the speech, by no stretch of imagination, could be seen as misogynistic or demeaning the womenfolk of the State, but was only a critique of the freebee policy of the State government. The court noted that it cannot be said that Shanmugan had compared women to commodities given by the State Government.
Case Title: MS Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
The Madras High Court recently criticised the State government for focusing on foreign investments while disregarding the local industries in the State.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the Government was having a lackadaisical approach to local industries, but at the same time, extending subsidies and tax exemptions for the foreign investors. The court noted that such approach defeated the object of achieving sustainable development.
Case Title: VBR Menon v. The Chief Controller of Explosives and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
The Madras High Court has ordered a CBI probe into the alleged incident of issuing fake No Objection Certificates (NOC) for obtaining licenses to operate petrol pumps in the State.
Noting that the investigation being carried out by the State was not fair or independent, the bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Arul Murugan thought it fit to transfer the investigation to an independent agency and ordered accordingly. The court added that, though it was usually slow in transferring the probe to another agency in the present case, despite orders from the court, the investigation was not being carried out in a proper direction.