Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 104 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 113 NOMINAL INDEX State of Tamil Nadu and another v. V Shunmugam, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 104 E Hariharan v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 105 B Shajimon v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 106 The Deputy Director v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad)...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 104 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
NOMINAL INDEX
State of Tamil Nadu and another v. V Shunmugam, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
E Hariharan v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
B Shajimon v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
The Deputy Director v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
A Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
Nandhini v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
Gurumurthi and Another v. The District Registrar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
Selvi v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
St.Josephs Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
V Ponramu and Another v. The Registrar, SHRC, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
REPORT
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu and another v. V Shunmugam
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
The Madras High Court recently held that the High Courts, exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot conduct an enquiry into pay parity.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that when the state had issued clear directives that its prior approval was necessary for upgrading the pay scale of workers of Arasu Rubber Corporation, a public sector undertaking of the Tamil Nadu government, the court could not rule otherwise.
Case Title: E Hariharan v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Secretary of Puducherry to frame a standard operating procedure (SOP) for sensitizing public officials for dealing with persons with disabilities.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava (now retired) and Justice G Arul Murugan highlighted that persons with disabilities had to be treated equally without discrimination and attitudinal barriers, and with sensitivity. The court thus directed the Chief Secretary to bring in an SOP for conducting sensitization programmes for public officials periodically.
The bench added that the right to access to justice and right to quality and equal treatment was basic human rights. However, the court added that while these principles found place in the constitution and the statute, the ground reality was different due to the attitude of the officials.
Case Title: B Shajimon v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
The Madras High Court recently lamented that education was being prioritised only for admission to medical or engineering seats, and the parents were making their kids run a rat race.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that parents were making kids choose easier subjects, so that the child could focus on three subjects alone, making it easier to clear the NEET examination. The court added that in high schools, even the mother tongue was being sacrificed so that the child could focus on NEET preparation.
Case Title: The Deputy Director v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
The Madras High Court directed the transfer of a money laundering case lodged under the PMLA to the Special Court of CBI cases which is hearing the predicate offence under Prevention of Corruption Act in the matter, after noting that the Special Court under PC Act is a designated court under the PMLA as well.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava (now retired) and Justice G Arul Murugan was considering a situation where the predicate offence is an offence under a special enactment being tried by a special court constituted under the special enactment, i.e., the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Special Court under the PMLA is not a designated Special Court under the PC Act.
Case Title: A Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
The Madras High Court has asked the government to take appropriate action against District Collectors and police officials, if they do not act in accordance with the Government's policy to abolish the orderly system in the State.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender noted that the orderly system had been abolished in the state and the government was duty-bound to work out modalities for enforcing its policy decision. For this, the court added that suitable actions could be taken against the officials who were not functioning in tune with government policies.
Case Title: Nandhini v. The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a woman for allegedly murdering her husband due to repeated quarrels and throwing his body in the nearby well.
While doing so, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal noted that in homicidal death cases, the primary fact that had to be proved was the identity of the deceased, which was not done in the present case. The court added that unless the identity of the deceased is proved, the court could not go into other materials relied upon by the prosecution.
Registering Authority Cannot Usurp Powers Of Civil Court To Cancel Sale Deed: Madras High Court
Case Title: Gurumurthi and Another v. The District Registrar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
The Madras High Court has reiterated that the registering authority does not have the power to go into the civil rights of parties.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender held that the registering authority cannot usurp the powers of the civil court and can only interfere if there is any apparent error. The court added that if there is any doubt regarding the civil rights of the parties, the registering authority should relegate the matter to the civil court.
With respect to fraud, the court noted that there were threefold actions that could be taken in case of fraud. First, the aggrieved person may file a complaint and prosecute the persons under the criminal law. Second, the person can approach the civil court for establishing the civil rights. Third, the person can approach the competent authorities for cancelling the registered documents. The court, however, made it clear that the definition of fraud could not be expanded for adjudicating civil rights through administrative action.
Case Title: Selvi v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
The Madras High Court recently acquitted a woman convicted of the murder of her husband.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal noted that the woman was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence. The court noted that while convicting the wife, the trial court had noted that she had not discharged the burden to prove that she was not inside the house when the husband was killed.
The court ruled that merely because the parties were husband and wife, it could not be presumed that they would always be seen together. The court noted that the prosecution had not let in any evidence to show that the couple was last seen together and, in such circumstances, Section 106 of the Evidence Act would not apply to shift the burden to the accused.
Case Title: St.Josephs Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu government to allot land to St.Josephs Matriculation Higher Secondary School in Cuddalore District in exchange for the land that the school had returned to a temple.
Noting that the land initially allotted for the school was sand dunes, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the state had acted recklessly and given away sand dunes for development without considering its ecological impact. The court observed that the sand dunes were also an incarnation of God and without realising it, the state had given away God itself to protect the sentiments of the devotees.
Case Title: V Ponramu and Another v. The Registrar, SHRC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
The Madras High Court has quashed an order of the State Human Rights Commission recommending Rs. 2 Lakh compensation to Lois Sofia and disciplinary action against police officers who arrested her for raising slogans against former Telangana Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the SHRC had made its recommendations, noting that there were discrepancies in the time of arrest and that the charge under Section 505(1)(b) [statement conducing to public mischief] was inserted by hand in the printed FIR.
The court held that such discrepancies should have been a matter of trial and it was not for the SHRC to decide the issues. The court observed that the Commission had conducted a parallel trial and its findings were per se illegal. The court was thus inclined to quash the commission's order.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Madras High Court Seeks State's Response On Plea For Paid Menstrual Leave Policy
Case Title: M Narmatha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: WP (MD) 6333 of 2026
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to respond to a plea seeking to frame a comprehensive paid menstrual leave policy for the women employees in Government Departments, Public Sector Undertakings, government educational institutions, allied establishments and special guidelines for private institutions.
The bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman has asked the State to respond to the plea.
As an interim direction, the plea also seeks to set up a State-level committee for examining the issue of menstrual health support measures, including the feasibility of menstrual leave or any other suitable workplace accommodation for women employees in Government Departments and Government-aided institutions.
Case Title: R Viswanathan @ MGR Viswanathan v. The Union of India and Others
Case No: WP 7882 of 2026
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to ban pre-poll alliances between political parties, alleging that they are against democratic principles.
When the matter was taken up on Monday (March 10), the petitioner appeared in person before the bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan.
However, as the petitioner continued to make submissions in Tamil, the bench informed him that the Chief Justice was not conversant with the language. The Court observed that the petitioner could either engage counsel to assist him in the proceedings or permit the bench to decide the matter on merits. Upon the petitioner expressing his intention to engage counsel, the Court adjourned the matter for a week.
Case Title: A Rajeshkannan v. The Home Secretary and Others
Case No: WP Crl (MD) 1392 of 2026
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (11th March 2026) orally remarked that though it supported the protests against the custodial death of a 26 year old in Manamadurai, the protestors could not cause undue hardship to the general public by obstructing the national highway and essential public movement.
Justice Victoria Gowri thus constituted a peace committee consisting of three lawyers to facilitate peace talks with the protestors and persuade them to shift their protests from Manamadurai Rameswaram Highway to Manamadurai Old Bus Stand so that traffic movement in this key section of NH-87 in Tamil Nadu is restored.
The court directed the protestors to cooperate with the peace committee members in the larger interest of maintaining public order while ensuring that their grievances are appropriately ventilated.
Madras High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Challenge To BNSS Provision On Pre-Cognizance Hearing
Case Title: Nakkheeran Gopal v. Union of India and Others
Case No: WP 6087 of 2026
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the first proviso of Section 223 of the BNSS. As per the first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS, A magistrate cannot take cognisance of an offence without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.
The plea, filed by Nakkheeran Gopal, an investigative journalist and owner of Nakkheeran Publications, states that the proviso is redundant, prolongs the trial, is repugnant to timely justice and ultra vires to the Constitution. The plea thus seeks to lay down correct trial procedure for the criminal defamation complaint, settling conflicts in Sections 210, 223, 225, and 227 of BNSS.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has admitted the plea and issued notice to the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Ministry of Home Affairs.