Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 84 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 95 NOMINAL INDEX 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...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 84 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
NOMINAL INDEX
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
Porkodi v. Siva and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
REPORT
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.
Madras High Court Cancels Bail Granted To 12 Accused In Murder Case Of BSP Leader K Armstrong
Case Title: Porkodi v. Siva and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
The Madras High Court has cancelled the bail of 12 accused persons arrested in connection with the murder of BSP leader K Armstrong.
Armstrong was brutally attacked and murdered on July 5, 2024.
Justice K Rajasekar decided to cancel bail after taking note of the submission made by Additional Public Prosecutor R Muniapparaj, who informed the court that the case was still at the stage of framing of charges and that granting bail to the accused at this stage might result in tampering with witnesses and destruction of evidence.
The court has also directed the accused persons to surrender before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai on or before March 6.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Anna University Moves Madras High Court Against Revocation Of Ex-VC's Suspension By Governor
Case Title: Anna University v. The Chancellor and Another
Case No: WP 5975 of 2026
The Anna University, through its Registrar, has approached the Madras High Court challenging an order passed by its Chancellor (Governor) revoking the suspension of former Vice Chancellor Dr R. Velraj.
Justice Dhandapani admitted the plea on Tuesday (24th February) and issued notices to the Chancellor and Velraj.
The University argued that the powers of the Governor-Chancellor were clearly stated in Section 9 of the Anna University Act 1978. It was argued that neither the Act nor the statute conferred power on the Governor-Chancellor to revoke or entertain an appeal against a suspension order passed by the Syndicate.
The University pointed out that an appeal against suspension would only lie to the immediate superior authority. It was submitted that the Syndicate was not subordinate to the Chancellor and was the apex body of the University. Thus, it was argued that the Governor-Chancellor could not usurp onto himself the power to modify or revoke the order of suspension.
Case Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. The Additional Chief Secretary
Case No: WP 5739 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (February 26th), orally remarked that many political parties were "mushrooming" lately, not with the intention of contesting elections but merely for getting tax benefits and other benefits under law.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan remarked that the court had recently dealt with cases related to the delisting and derecognition of political parties, noting that many new political parties had emerged in recent years.
The court made the remarks while hearing a case filed by actor-turned-politician Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) challenging certain conditions in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) promulgated by the State for political meetings.
Case Title: IS Inbadurai v. AT Durai Kumar
Case No: Cont P 37046/26 [filing no]
Rajya Sabha MP Inbadurai has approached the Madras High Court seeking action against IPS officer AT Durai Kumar (In-Charge Director of Directorate for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) for alleged wilful disobedience of a High Court order directing DVAC to register a case against Minister KN Nehru and others in connection with a cash for job scam.
It may be noted that on February 20, the High Court bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan had directed the Tamil Nadu DVAC to register a case based on the materials shared by the Enforcement Directorate.
Inbadurai states that this continued inaction on the part of the authority amounted to wilful disobedience of the court order and amounted to civil contempt. He states that the authority is deliberately not registering against the Minister under extraneous considerations and political influence, thereby defeating the purpose of the order.
Case Title: Arappor Iyakkam v. The Director and others
Case No: WP 8166 of 2024
The Madras High Court on Thursday (26th February) called for details of the preliminary enquiry that had been undertaken into a Rs. 397 crore scam in procuring transformer tenders during the tenure of Senthil Balaji as the Minister for Electricity and Prohibition and Excise from 2021 to 2023.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan also called for minutes of the tender committee meetings. The court wondered how all the bidders who participated in the tender could have quoted the same price, causing huge financial loss to the state exchequer.
Case Title: M Neethipandian v. State and Others
Case No: WP Crl (MD) 1174 of 2026
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court calling for action against Tamil Nadu Milk and Diary Development Minister Mano Thangaraj for social media posts made by him linking Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the “Epstein Files”.
Justice S Srimathy admitted the plea and issued notices to the Chief Secretary, the Superintendent of Police, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station.
M Neethipandian, District Head for the BJP Tuticorin North Advocates Team, has filed the plea.
In his plea, Neethipandian submitted that on 13th February at 6 pm, he came across an objectionable Facebook post made by the minister which contained a 3 minute 21 second video falsely claiming that PM Narendra Modi had been named in the Epstein Files. He submitted that the post was patently false, malicious and defamatory designed to criminally defame the PM and incite public hatred.