Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 16 to February 22, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 69 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 83 NOMINAL INDEX The Accountant General v. M Radhakrishnan and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 69 S Muneeswaran and Another v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 70 Government of Tamil Nadu and Others v. M Rajesh Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 71 Nagarajan v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 72 M/s. Seyadu Beedi Company v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 73 Tamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam v The Chief Election Commissioner and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 74 KMC College of Law v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 75 Under Secretary to Government and Others v. Dr Ajitha and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 76 Sowdhamani v. The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 77 N Samaran v. The Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 78 KS Balakrishnan v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 79 K. Athinarayanan v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 80 M/s. Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Election Commission of India and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 81 V Shiva v. The Inspector General of Registration and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 82 The Secretary to Government, Education Department & Others v. N.K. Shankar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 83 REPORT TN Service Rules Prohibit Bigamy, Can't Include Second Wife's Name In Pension Order Even After Death Of First Wife: Madras HighCourt Case Title: The Accountant General v. M Radhakrishnan and Another Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 69 The Madras High Court recently held that the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules prohibit contracting of a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that bigamous marriage was a grave misconduct under the service rules, warranting departmental action. Thus, the court ruled that the second wife's name could not be included in the Pension Payment Order even after the death of the first wife. Hardship In Raising Mentally Disabled Child No Ground To Kill Her: Madras High Court Upholds Parents' Conviction For Poisoning Daughter Case Title: S Muneeswaran and Another v. State Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 70 The Madras High Court recently upheld the conviction and sentence of a couple for administering poison and killing their child with mental disorder. While the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima sympathised with the parents and the difficulties that they may have faced to bring up the child, the court noted that the parents had a bounden duty to take care of their child whether the child was born with or without disabilities. The court also remarked that no one had the right to take law into their own hands and take another person's life. Promotion Not A Fundamental Right, But Consideration For Promotion Is A Fundamental Right: Madras High Court Reiterates Case Title: Government of Tamil Nadu and Others v. M Rajesh Kumar Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 71 The Madras High Court has reiterated that while promotion is not a fundamental right, the employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion. "It is well settled principle of law that the promotion is not a fundamental right, however, consideration for promotion is the fundamental right," the court said. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan however, added that one could not expect mathematical precision from a Government department to consider posting the employee in a particular post to make him eligible for promotion. The court added that in such matters, one had to see if there was any motivated abnormal delay on the part of the Government Department. Shocking That Ancient Temple Structures Are Let Out For Rent By HR&CE Unmindful Of Their Responsibility: Madras High Court Case Title: Nagarajan v. The District Collector and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 72 The Madras High Court has expressed shock over ancient temple properties being let out on rent by officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Department without taking steps to protect the structure. Noting that the Joint Commissioner of the HR & CE was involved in the exploiting of the temple property for financial gain, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the tenants had no right to occupy or damage ancient structures in the temple based on illegal permission granted by the Joint Commissioner. Beedi Rollers Engaged Through Intermediary Would Be Considered Employees, Eligible For Provident Fund: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. Seyadu Beedi Company v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 73 The Madras High Court recently held that “beedi rollers” who have been employed through an intermediary agency would still be considered as employees under the Employees'...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 16 to February 22, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

Tags