Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 06 - April 12, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 144 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 159 NOMINAL INDEX The Vice President v. Joint Commissioner of Labour and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 144 Muthukumar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 145 Murugan Asari v. Chinnammal and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 146 P Seethalakshmi v The Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 147 P Revathi v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 148 T Prabhakaran v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 149 Chinna Maharaja v The Election Commission of India and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 150 ML Ravi v. Chief Election Commissioner and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 151 M Suresh Kumar v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 152 Dhandapani (Died) and Others v. Balaji, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 153 JN Naresh Kumar v Jayakaran Vasudevan and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 154 Himanshu Pathak v Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 155 Hindu Dharma Parishad v The Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 156 D Rakesh v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 157 KR Kukesh BA v The Election Commission of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 158 Pattali Makkal Katchi v Election Commission of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 159 REPORT Abruptly Blocking Employee's Smart Card Access To Terminate Him Violates Basic Dignity Of Labour: Madras High Court Case Title: The Vice President v. Joint Commissioner of Labour and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 144 The Madras High Court recently observed that a company abruptly blocking an employee's smart card access to terminate him from work violates the basic dignity of labour. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that people in managerial positions should take a more empathetic approach and think from the employee's point of view. The court added that such an abrupt termination violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Protection of Human Rights Act. Doctor's Accident Register Entry Not Gospel Truth, Can't Be Pitted Against Unassailable Eyewitnesses To Discredit Them: Madras High Court Case Title: Muthukumar v The State Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 145 The Madras High Court recently observed that the entries made by a doctor in an accident register cannot be taken as gospels of truth or be used to discredit the statement of unassailable witnesses. The bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal thus refused to interfere with the conviction and sentence of a man for the murder of his wife. The court considered the judgments of the Supreme Court where it was held that the injury certificate does not amount to an admission as the Doctor, at that stage, was only required to fill up the columns in a normal manner. The court noted that at that stage, the doctor was not concerned with the finer details of the case and was only filling up the columns provided in the Register. The court thus emphasised that the entries made in the Accident Register could not be taken to be gospels of truth. Karta Can't Unilaterally Gift Substantial Portion Of Joint Family Property In Favour Of One Coparcener: Madras High Court Case Title: Murugan Asari v. Chinnammal and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 146 The Madras High Court has recently held that a Karta does not have the authority to unilaterally transfer a substantial portion of the joint family property to one coparcener, to the exclusion of others. Justice AD Maria Clete held that such a gift would give exclusive benefit to one coparcener and would destroy the proprietary rights of other coparceners. The court also noted that a gift was outside the competence of the Karta and such gratuitous transfers could be made only in limited situations for legal necessity, benefit of estate, charitable purpose, gifts for a daughter's marriage, or indispensable duties. Religion Is Not A Cloak For Enrichment, Poojaris Not Entitled To Monies Deposited In Temple Donation Box As A Right: Madras High Court Case Title: P Seethalakshmi v The Commissioner Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 147 The Madras High Court recently observed that temple poojaris are not entitled to claim a share in the collections from temple hundis (donation box) as a matter of right. Noting that religion should not be used as a cloak for enrichment, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that hundi collection was a resource for the temple and not the fiefdom of the poojaris. Noting the massive collection that the temple received from the devotees and the misappropriation of temple funds by the appellants, the court said that it was imperative for the Government to intervene in the administration of the temple. Noting that such fights for hundi collection shocked the court's judicial conscience, the court held that it was a...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 06 - April 12, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

Tags