Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 42 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 51 NOMINAL INDEX P Mangaiyarkkarasi v. The Registrar General and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 42 A Sarath v. The Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 43 Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 44 G Thirukalyanamalar v State Bank of India and Others, 2026...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 42 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
NOMINAL INDEX
P Mangaiyarkkarasi v. The Registrar General and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
A Sarath v. The Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
G Thirukalyanamalar v State Bank of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
P Balasubramaniyam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
Murugammal and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
Ponmudi v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
H Vennila v. State and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
V v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
A.V.B.Prabhu v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
REPORT
Can't Deny Maternity Benefit For Third Pregnancy Of Public Servants: Madras High Court Reiterates
Case Title: P Mangaiyarkkarasi v. The Registrar General and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
The Madras High Court has reiterated that the benefit of maternity leave should be extended to government servants even for their third pregnancy.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed also commented that, though similar orders have been passed by the Supreme Court and the high court repeatedly, the authorities failed to understand the intent of the previous orders. The court thus directed the High Court registry to circulate the order to all judicial officers heading the District Judiciary throughout the state to ensure stricter compliance.
The court also directed the Chief Secretary to strictly adhere to the principles previously laid down by the court and communicate the order to the Secretaries of Government and Heads of departments for strict compliance.
Case Title: A Sarath v. The Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
The Madras High Court recently observed that encroachment, even if having a religious character, cannot be permitted on a public place or land vested with the local body. The court added that it is the duty of the Municipal Commissioner to remove the encroachment after due notice.
Justice V Lakshminarayana thus ordered the removal of a shrine of Mother Velankanni that had been installed in a public road. Commenting that a road or street does not have religious character, the court noted that, irrespective of the nature of the superstructure, the encroachment had to be removed.
Case Title: Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
The Madras High court, on Tuesday (27th January) set aside an order of the single judge directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant U/A certificate for Vijay's Jana Nayagan movie.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, however, sent the matter back to the single judge for fresh consideration, noting that the natural justice principles were not followed. The single bench has been directed to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the CBFC to respond. The producer KVN Productions has also been given liberty to amend the writ petition.
Case Title: G Thirukalyanamalar v State Bank of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a non-citizen can also file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a State action if the same is allegedly arbitrary, making unreasonable discrimination and results in violation of rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar also noted that the rehabilitation scheme for Sri Lankan Tamil refugees provides for benefits such as shelter, education, and employment in India, particularly in the State of Tamil Nadu. The court thus opined that the State Bank of India's action, in denying employment opportunity to an otherwise eligible candidate, merely on the ground that she was a Sri Lankan national was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: P Balasubramaniyam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
The Madras High Court recently lamented the institution of multiple cases in family disputes and commented that instead of approaching the Family Courts to settle the disputes, parties often expanded the disputes to criminal courts and other jurisdictions and sometimes even the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Pointing out that there is no end to docket multiplication in family disputes, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed as under,
“There is no end to docket multiplication, when it comes to family disputes. From the Family Courts, it is expanded to Criminal Courts and the other jurisdictions and now, slowly, all subjects under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are also being occupied for the dispute…If the issue is not settled, they are supposed to go for trial and if a prayer is made for divorce or restitution of conjugal rights or maintenance, as the case may be, the Court will grant or refuse the relief depending on whether the grounds are made out or not. But, unfortunately, variety of litigations are filed for the family dispute,” the court said.
The court has also imposed costs on a father-in-law for filing a case against daughter-in-law for wreaking vengeance.
Case Title: Murugammal and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging the construction of Kalabhairavar Dhagana Mandapam by the Isha Foundation.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999 did not prohibit granting of license for crematorium within 90 meters of dwelling place or source of drinking water supply. The court noted that as per the rules, the only pre-requisite was to obtain license from the village panchayat.
The bench also noted that construction of the gasifier crematorium would be for the benefit of the community and could not be said to be against public interest.
Case Title: Ponmudi v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
The Madras High Court recently observed that higher courts should not mechanically issue directions to the authorities for early disposal of petitions and should consider the urgency required in each cases.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan observed that every court or statutory authority is expected to dispose of appeals, revisions, etc in a systematic manner and in order of seniority. The court added that if it issues directions to dispose of applications and any particular matter alone is disposed of, it would cause prejudice to other persons who are waiting for disposing their appeals.
Case Title: H Vennila v. State and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
The Madras High Court recently observed that conferring a gold medal on students is an academic matter which should be left to the academicians.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that there was no legal right involved in getting a gold medal and it was only a competition between the students involved. The court thus took a different view than the one taken by the Delhi High Court.
The court noted that there was no legal right for granting gold medal and the meaning of “first attempt” should be left to the academicians themselves especially when they are imparting a meaning uniformly for all the students.
Case Title: V v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
The Madras High Court recently overturned the conviction of a father under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly sexually assaulting his minor daughter.
Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the statement of the witnesses including the victim and the mother, was exaggerated, with malafide and was made only to wreak vengeance against the father while the divorce proceedings were pending between the parents.
Case Title: A.V.B.Prabhu v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
The Madras High Court recently observed that the State cannot unilaterally declare projects using temple funds. The court added that the State has no role to envision projects for temples without consulting with the temple itself.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice C Kumarappan thus set aside a Government Order issued by the State for carrying out civil works in Shri Kallazhagar Temple, Madurai to the tune of 40 crores as part of the state's “Iconic Project” to provide facilities in ancient temples.
The bench also noted that there was a meed to professionally manage temple assets through temple trustees who were to be appointed in rotation. The court added that the Trustees, who were to be persons of high standard, were to be assisted by a team of efficient managers with knowledge and interest in Hindu religion.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Madras High Court Stays Construction And Renovation In Ancient Temples Across State
Case Title: A. Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary to the Government and Others
Case No: W.P.Nos.34810 of 2023 & 11240 of 2024
The Madras High Court has stayed any construction or renovation in the ancient temples of the state till steps are taken for appointing a chairperson to the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice S Sounthar expressed displeasure with the State's delay in setting up the heritage commission. The bench had previously directed the State to set up the Heritage Commission within a month.
The court was hearing a plea regarding alleged illegal constructions at the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Thirukoil, Tiruvannamalai. It had previously stayed construction in the temple.
Actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party has approached the Madras High Court seeking modifications in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) promulgated by the State for public meetings by political parties.
The plea, filed through the party's Joint General Secretary, CTR Nirmal Kumar, states that the SOP gives priority to political parties recognised by the Election Commission of India to the exclusion of registered political parties, and thus creates an unconstitutional classification. It has also been argued that the SOP violates Article 14 of the Constitution, creating an impermissible political hierarchy.
The plea also states that the SOP imposes excessive, vague, and disproportionate restrictions on speech and assembly, violating Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.