Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 69 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 83 NOMINAL INDEX 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...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 69 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
NOMINAL INDEX
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
REPORT
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.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: T Sivagnanasambandan v. The Secretary and Others
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging eight provisions of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act [VB-G-RAM G].
The plea, filed by Advocate T Sivagnanasambandan alleges that the provisions of the new Act, which is replacing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), are anti-federal and ultra vires to Article 245 and Article 246 of the Constitution.
The plea argues that the provisions legislate on matters falling under the State List and the Concurrent List, including rural employment, agriculture labour, panchayatraj administration, local self-government and give exclusive control to the Union Government.
The All India Lawyers Association for Justice (AILAJ) has written to the Madras High Court registry stating that an earlier letter claiming that a senior advocate had taken Rs 50 Lakh from a client to allegedly bribe a judge was fake.
The letter, signed by the State Co-ordinator for AILAJ, U Adhiyaman, states that the association was shocked to know that it's name was being misused in the fake letter. The letter further reads that it had never sent any such letter to the Judge or to any other authority, and the association was nowhere connected with the complaint.
Case Title: Vivekanandan A v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Case No:WP(MD) No. 4549 of 2026
The Madras High Court has sought the response of the State Government on a plea challenging a notification issued by the Home Department, which mandated getting prior sanction before prosecuting police officials in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan has directed the Home (Police) Department and the Director General of Police to respond to the plea.
The petition, filed by advocate Vivekanandan states that the notification is ultra vires it misuses a directory power to equate civil servants under Entry 2 of List II of the Seventh Schedule (State Police) with the 'Armed Forces of the Union' under Entry 2 of List I.
Case Title: A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others
Case No: WP Crl 1791 of 2025
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (18th February) reserved orders on pleas filed by Youtuber Journalist Savukku Shankar's mother seeking specialised medical treatment for him and challenging his solitary confinement in the present.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman reserved orders after hearing Senior Advocate V Raghavachari, representing Shankar's mother Kamala and Additional Public Prosecutor Muniyapparaj, for the state.