Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 23 to March 1, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 84 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 95 NOMINAL INDEX Union of India and Others v. B Shankar Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 84 MIOT Hospitals Private Limited v. Dr.Balaraman Palaniappan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 85 Chellamanickam v. The Principle Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 86 Vaiko v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 87 B Shyam and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 88 Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust and another v. Government of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 89 Mrs Magitha Anna Christy v. State Human Rights Commission and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 90 M Kalaiselvi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 91 C. Ve. Shanmugam v. The Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 92 MS Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 93 VBR Menon v. The Chief Controller of Explosives and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 94 Porkodi v. Siva and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 95 REPORT Generating Tatkal Tickets For Out-Of-Turn Passengers Without Collecting Fare Is Misconduct: Madras High Court Case Title: Union of India and Others v. B Shankar Kumar Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 84 The Madras High Court recently held that generating Tatkal tickets for out-of-turn passengers without collecting fare would be misconduct under the Railway Service Conduct Rules. The court thus found an employee guilty of issuing tickets to third parties and violating the norms for issuing tickets. The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the employee had generated tickets based on reservation forms, which were not handed over to him across the counter and which were collected by him before his duty time. The court thus concluded that he had violated the provisions of the Railways Service Conduct Rules. Doctors Are Not Regular Workers, Hospitals Can't Restrain Them From Joining Other Hospitals: Madras High Court Case Title: MIOT Hospitals Private Limited v. Dr.Balaraman Palaniappan Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 85 The Madras High Court has recently observed that a hospital cannot treat the doctors working with it as normal employees or restrain them from taking up employment at other hospitals post resignation. Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the doctor is not like a workmen in a factory, or regular employees. The court remarked that doctors render their services to hospitals, and that hospitals would not be able to survive without such services. The court also noted that the hospitals could not have "rivalry" among themselves as it was not similar to a commercial establishment. The court noted that the rivalry between hospitals itself was a misnomer since a hospital was an independent entity, running to serve patients and not a commercial business. No Caste, No Religion Certificate Can't Be Issued Unless Person Relinquishes Religion As Per Rites: Madras High Court Case Title: Chellamanickam v. The Principle Secretary and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 86 The Madras High court recently rejected a man's request for a No Caste No Religion certificate, noting that the same could not be claimed without relinquishing the religion fiirst. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy of Madurai Bench noted that unless the religion was relinquished as per existing rites, there was no question of issuing a certificate. The court added that when there was no proof of relinquishing religion, it could not direct the authorities to issue a no caste no religion certificate. Madras High Court Dismisses Vaiko's Plea Challenging 2012 LTTE Ban, Says Expired Notification Can't Be Adjudicated Case Title: Vaiko v Union of India and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 87 The Madras High Court on Tuesday (24th February) dismissed a plea filed by the General Secretary of Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) and former Rajya Sabha MP Vaiko, challenging a 2012 notification issued by the Central government banning the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar noted that the notification did not exist as on date and the court could not spend its judicial time on adjudicating an expired issue. Every Non-Relative Organ Donor Can't Be Viewed With Suspicion Of Commercial Dealings: Madras High Court Case Title: B Shyam and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 88 The Madras High Court recently directed the Authorisation Committee of the Directorate of Medical Education and Research to grant approval for the kidney transplant of a law student from his maternal aunt's husband's brother. Justice PT Asha observed that not every third-party donor has to be seen through the eyes of suspicion, and the ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 23 to March 1, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

Tags