Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 96 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 103 NOMINAL INDEX P Malairajan and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 96 S Paramasivam v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 97 Sethumadhavan and Another v. Sigamani and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 98 The Commissioner and Others v. Kannammal Education Trust and Others, 2026 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 96 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
NOMINAL INDEX
P Malairajan and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
S Paramasivam v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
Sethumadhavan and Another v. Sigamani and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
The Commissioner and Others v. Kannammal Education Trust and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
Mohana Ramaswami v. The Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
A Radhakrishnan v. P Madhusudhanreddy IAS and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
The Principal Secretary to Government and Another v. S Chitra and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
Mahesh v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
REPORT
Case Title: P Malairajan and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
The Madras High Court has dismissed pleas by more than 300 families challenging the eviction proceedings initiated by the State government as part of upgrading the Madurai airport to an international airport.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the government had acted fairly and reasonably and had even granted additional compensation to the families, along with providing alternate housing.
The court noted that in the present case, the land acquisition was started in 2009, and thus, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 would not be applicable in the present case. Though the petitioners also claimed 2 acre of agricultural land, the court noted that there was nothing to show that they were involved in agriculture and thus, the demand could not be accepted.
Minister Ragupathy Gave Mischievous Political Spin To Thiruparankundram Issue: Madras High Court
Case Title: S Paramasivam v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
The Madras High Court, on Monday (March 2nd), remarked that Tamil Nadu Minister for Minerals and Mines S Regupathy had given a mischievous political spin to the Thiruparankundram issue when he made a statement that the Government would not permit lighting of the Karthigai deepam at the Deepathoon (Stone Pillar).
Justice GR Swaminathan was hearing a sub-application filed for impleading the Minister in the ongoing contempt petition against the state authorities for failing to comply with the court order and not permitting lighting of the lamp.
It had been argued that as per a newspaper article on 7th January 2026, the Minister had allegedly stated that the prohibitory order was issued to frustrate the court order and that the government would not permit the lighting of lamp at the deepathoon.
Since the Collector had controverted the stand taken by the Minister, the court was not inclined to summon the Minister. The court also thought it fit to close the sub-application but made it clear that it would not hesitate from reopening the matter if occasion demands.
Case Title: Sethumadhavan and Another v. Sigamani and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
The Madras High Court has called for disciplinary action against the District Collector of Ramanathapuram for failing to appear in a case, which ultimately led to an ex parte order being passed against government property.
Justice N Senthilkumar remarked that when valuable government property was involved in litigation, the government could not remain a mute spectator. The court added that when responsible officers fail to conduct cases, it would affect the public interest.
The court has also directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disatser Management Department, to issue comprehensive Government Order giving clear guidelines for all government pleaders and revenue officials specifying their duties and responsibilities in civil suits against the state, mandatory steps to be taken when government officials are set ex parte, time lines for filing written statements, applications to set aside the ex parte orders, appeals, and petitions for condonation of delay, and disciplinary consequences in case of dereliction of duty.
Case Title: The Commissioner and Others v. Kannammal Education Trust and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, to conduct an appropriate enquiry into the delay on the State's part in pursuing appeals against orders on time.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that in a large number of cases, the court was observing that the State was filing appeals after a great delay and no satisfactory explanation was being given for the delay. The court noted that the delay seemed to be either due to negligence or due to connivance with the parties concerned. The court thus directed that a discreet vigilance enquiry can be conducted to unearth the truth.
Case Title: Mohana Ramaswami v. The Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
The Madras High Court has clarified that when an addressee has died, the post that was addressed to him can be handed over to his/her family, without sending it back to the sender.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that there was confusion on the category of persons who could collect the article since it had not been defined under the regulations. The court thus directed the Ministry of Communications to make suitable amendments to the Post Office Regulations to clearly define the persons to whom items could be delivered, where the addressee is dead.
Till the regulations are suitably amended, the court clarified that the articles could be handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased, as they would undoubtedly fall within the category of persons to whom items could be delivered.
Case Title: A Radhakrishnan v. P Madhusudhanreddy IAS and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
The Madras High Court has criticised the delay on the part of the state in complying with court orders and removing encroachment of around 507 acres of temple land.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice B Pugalendhi observed that constitutional governance should not be subordinate to electoral expediency. The court remarked that merely because a deity did not have voting rights, it should not be left remediless. The court added that it had a parens patiae jurisdiction, and when judicial orders are stalled by organised resistance, the rule of law itself stands tested.
Case Title: The Principal Secretary to Government and Another v. S Chitra and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
The Madras High Court recently held that the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Ninaivu Marriage Assistance Scheme [Marriage Assistance Scheme] of the Tamil Nadu government cannot be extended to every person who earns minimum wages.
Interfering with an observation made by a single judge, the bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the single judge could not substitute one executive policy for another. The bench noted that when there was no law that extended the scheme to persons with minimum wages, such a benefit could not be ordered by the court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Mahesh v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a boy convicted and sentenced under Section 366 IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl.
Noting that the couple, both of whom were minors at the time, were having a consensual relationship, Justice N Mala noted that in such kinds of relationships, it was often the young boys who ended up bearing the consequences.
The court further noted that if wide publicity is given about the provisions of the POCSO Act and its stringency, as provided under Section 43 of the POCSO Act, this menace could be controlled to an extent. The court highlighted that lack of knowledge about the stringency of the provisions is one of the reasons that the law was being misused.
The court thus directed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to take immediate positive steps to comply with Section 43 of the POCSO Act, to create awareness among the general public, children and parents about the act. The court also directed the Chief Secretary to consider organising camps in Government and private schools and colleges for creating awareness about the act and its dire consequences.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: IS Inbadurai v. AT Durai Kumar IPS
Case No: CONT P 872 of 2026
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to respond to a contempt petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP Inbadurai 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.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan has directed the TNDVAC to file its counter. It may be noted that on February 20, the bench had directed the Tamil Nadu DVAC to register a case forthwith based on the materials shared by the Enforcement Directorate.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others
Case No: CONT P(MD) Nos.3594 & 3657 of 2025
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (4th March) orally remarked that the contempt proceeding initiated against the State authorities for failing to comply with an earlier direction for lighting Karthigai Deepam at the deepathoon (stone pillar) in the Thiruparankundram hill, was not political.
Justice GR Swaminathan orally commented that he just wanted to ensure that the court orders were respected. When the petitioners argued that the authorities were only trying to delay the proceedings and ensure good name for the government before election, the judge remarked that the issue was not political for him and he was only making sure that the court order is respected.
Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, bid farewell to the court on Thursday (5th March) following his superannuation.
Speaking at his farewell ceremony, the judge thanked the members of the bar for their continued cooperation, constructive engagement and matured assistance. The judge remarked that the bench was rightly called the judge of the judge and the partnership between the bench and the bar strengthens the public confidence in the justice delivery system.
The judge also remarked that the institution was much larger than any individual and it is the solemn responsibility of the members of judiciary to preserve and carry forward the legacy of independence, integrity, scholarship and courage.
Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari Sworn In As Chief Justice of Madras High Court
Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari has taken oath as the Chief Justice of Madras High Court on March 6, 2026. The oath was administered to him by Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi at Lokbhavan today.
On February 27, the Supreme Court Collegium had recommended his appointment as the Madras High Court CJ. Yesterday (5th March 2026), the central government notified his appointment.