Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 144 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 159 NOMINAL INDEX The Vice President v. Joint Commissioner of Labour and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 144 Muthukumar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 145 Murugan Asari v. Chinnammal and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 146 P Seethalakshmi v The Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 147 P Revathi v. The District Collector and...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 144 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
NOMINAL INDEX
The Vice President v. Joint Commissioner of Labour and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
Muthukumar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
Murugan Asari v. Chinnammal and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
P Seethalakshmi v The Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
P Revathi v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 148
T Prabhakaran v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 149
Chinna Maharaja v The Election Commission of India and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 150
ML Ravi v. Chief Election Commissioner and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 151
M Suresh Kumar v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 152
Dhandapani (Died) and Others v. Balaji, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
JN Naresh Kumar v Jayakaran Vasudevan and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 154
Himanshu Pathak v Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
Hindu Dharma Parishad v The Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 156
D Rakesh v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 157
KR Kukesh BA v The Election Commission of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 158
Pattali Makkal Katchi v Election Commission of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
REPORT
Case Title: The Vice President v. Joint Commissioner of Labour and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
The Madras High Court recently observed that a company abruptly blocking an employee's smart card access to terminate him from work violates the basic dignity of labour.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that people in managerial positions should take a more empathetic approach and think from the employee's point of view. The court added that such an abrupt termination violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Protection of Human Rights Act.
Case Title: Muthukumar v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
The Madras High Court recently observed that the entries made by a doctor in an accident register cannot be taken as gospels of truth or be used to discredit the statement of unassailable witnesses.
The bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal thus refused to interfere with the conviction and sentence of a man for the murder of his wife.
The court considered the judgments of the Supreme Court where it was held that the injury certificate does not amount to an admission as the Doctor, at that stage, was only required to fill up the columns in a normal manner. The court noted that at that stage, the doctor was not concerned with the finer details of the case and was only filling up the columns provided in the Register. The court thus emphasised that the entries made in the Accident Register could not be taken to be gospels of truth.
Case Title: Murugan Asari v. Chinnammal and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
The Madras High Court has recently held that a Karta does not have the authority to unilaterally transfer a substantial portion of the joint family property to one coparcener, to the exclusion of others.
Justice AD Maria Clete held that such a gift would give exclusive benefit to one coparcener and would destroy the proprietary rights of other coparceners.
The court also noted that a gift was outside the competence of the Karta and such gratuitous transfers could be made only in limited situations for legal necessity, benefit of estate, charitable purpose, gifts for a daughter's marriage, or indispensable duties.
Case Title: P Seethalakshmi v The Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
The Madras High Court recently observed that temple poojaris are not entitled to claim a share in the collections from temple hundis (donation box) as a matter of right.
Noting that religion should not be used as a cloak for enrichment, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that hundi collection was a resource for the temple and not the fiefdom of the poojaris.
Noting the massive collection that the temple received from the devotees and the misappropriation of temple funds by the appellants, the court said that it was imperative for the Government to intervene in the administration of the temple. Noting that such fights for hundi collection shocked the court's judicial conscience, the court held that it was a stark reminder of the need for equitable and responsible financial management.
Case Title: P Revathi v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 148
The Madras High Court has directed the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, to inquire into claims of a woman that her family is being ostracised by the village upon directions of the Katta Panchayat (Kangaroo court).
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy directed the authorities to conduct an inquiry and ensure that no injustice is caused to the woman and her family, and their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution are preserved.
Case Title: T Prabhakaran v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 149
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (7th April), dismissed as withdrawn a plea seeking to reschedule the dates for IPL matches that are proposed to be held in the Chepauk Stadium in Chennai, considering the upcoming assembly elections in the State.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that one match had already taken place post the filing of the plea, and there was nothing to show that any violation had taken place during the match.
The court also noted that the Election Commission of India was taking necessary steps, and if there was any violation, it was open for the petitioner to approach the ECI.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Extend Nomination Period For TN Assembly Elections 2026
Case Title: Chinna Maharaja v The Election Commission of India and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 150
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Election Commision of India to extend the nomination filing period for the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections 2026. It may be noted that the nomination period for the TN Assembly elections was fixed from March 30, 2026, to April 6, 2026.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed a petition filed by Chinna Maharaja of Tirunelveli District. The court noted that the schedule for the election was fixed by the Election Commission of India as per Section 30 of the Representation of Peoples Act and the court could not extend such time limit.
Case Title: ML Ravi v. Chief Election Commissioner and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 151
The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition seeking direction to the Election Commission of India to frame appropriate guidelines and regulatory measures to prevent misuse of reserved election symbols.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea filed by ML Ravi, President of Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi (DMSK) party, seeking to prevent the issuance of Form A and Form B to candidates belonging to other political parties.
The court noted that no material had been placed to show that symbols belonging to one political party had been assigned to persons belonging to another political party. It said the plea sought for a general prayer, which the court was not inclined to grant. The court also noted that a similar petition filed by Ravi had already been dismissed by the court previously.
Katchanatham Caste Killings: Madras High Court Upholds Life Sentence Of 26 Accused, Acquits One
Case Title: M Suresh Kumar v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 152
The Madras High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on 26 men involved in the caste killings that happened in Katchnatham Village in Sivagangai District.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima acquitted one person, noting that his presence at the crime scene was highly improbable.
The case relates to the violence that took place in Katchnatham Village, which resulted in the death of three and left five injured. As per the prosecution, on May 25, 2018, during the annual temple festival in Karuppar Temple, ceremonial honours were exclusively accorded to the members belonging to the scheduled caste community. This decision offended the accused persons who belonged to other communities.
Case Title: Dhandapani (Died) and Others v. Balaji
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
The Madras High Court recently observed that a decree of defamation touches upon the character and reputation of a person against whom it is passed, and such stigma would continue even after the person's death.
The court added that the legal representatives, in such a situation, would want to remove the stigma and could continue the proceedings.
Case Title: JN Naresh Kumar v Jayakaran Vasudevan and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 154
The Madras High Court recently held that a lawyer cannot be prosecuted for the offence of defamation, merely for statements made by him upon a client's instructions.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan held that a lawyer only speaks on behalf of his client and has no opportunity to verify the truthfulness of the facts narrated by the client. The court added that any responsibility for such a statement should be on the client and not the advocate, and any contrary view would be against the settled law on lawyers' privilege.
Case Title: Himanshu Pathak v Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by cybersecurity specialist Himanshu Pathak against a single judge's order dismissing his plea seeking directions to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, IRDAI, and SEBI to inquire into alleged data security lapses in Star Heath Insurance Company.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that while dismissing his writ petition, the single judge had rightly given him liberty to work out his remedies in pending civil proceedings, and thus there was no error or infirmity in the decision of the writ court.
Case Title: Hindu Dharma Parishad v The Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 156
The Madras High Court on Thursday (9 April) dismissed a petition filed by the Hindu Dharma Parishad seeking to light lamp atop the Thiruparankundram Hills.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman criticised filing such pleas for political gains and dismissed the plea.
“You're using this for your political gain? Doesn't the court have any other work to do? Is there no issue other than Thiruparankundram?” the bench orally remarked.
For context, on December 1, 2025, a single judge had ordered the management of the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp at 6 pm on December 3rd. A contempt petition was filed on December 3, alleging that no arrangements had been made to comply with the order.
Case Title: D Rakesh v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 157
The Madras High Court, on Friday (10th April), dismissed writ petitions filed against screening of Ranveer Singh starrer "Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge" movie in Tamil Nadu till the end of assembly elevtions in the State.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that there was no law that prevent screening of a movie while the Model Code of Conduct was in place. The bench also noted that the petitioners had not challenged the certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification, without which, the court could not issue any direction to prevent screening of the movie.
Case Title: KR Kukesh BA v The Election Commission of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 158
The Madras High Court, on Friday (10 April), dismissed a public interest litigation seeking SMS confirmation while casting votes for the upcoming assembly elections in the state of Tamil Nadu.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the election process had already begun and at this point, the court could not issue any such directions to the Election Commission of India. The court remarked that the suggestion could be considered in the next elections.
Case Title: Pattali Makkal Katchi v Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea by Pattali Makkal Katchi founder Dr S Ramadoss challenging an interim order of the Chennai City Civil Court refusing to direct the Election Commission of India to freeze the “Mango” symbol for the upcoming elections in the State.
Justice TV Thamilselvi, on Friday (10th April), dismissed a civil revision petition filed by Ramadoss. The court noted that the relief sought had the nature of interfering with the election process and once the elections are notified, the courts could not pass such orders.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Arjunan Sampath v. The Chief Electoral Officer
Case No: WP 13425 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (7th April) has ordered notice to the Election Commission of India on a plea seeking directions to the Returning Officers to ensure that only those professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism are permitted to contest in elections from constituencies earmarked for the Scheduled Caste community.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan ordered notice to the ECI and directed the standing counsel to take instructions regarding the plea. The court has decided to hear the plea on 9th April.