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

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 114 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 125 NOMINAL INDEX V Varun Kumar and Others v. P Thamizhselvan and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 114 P Vanajakshi v. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 115 M Senthilmurugan v. The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 116 Mohammed Rafiq and Others v. The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 117 AC Murugesan and Others v District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 118 KJ Praveenkumar IAS v Rama Ravikumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 119 S Murgan v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 120 T Sivagnanasambandan v. The Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 121 R Viswanathan @ MGR Viswanathan v. The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 122 Vaiko and Others v. The Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 123 S Kumarasamy v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 124 R Vembu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 125 REPORT SC/ST Act Enacted To Safeguard Interest Of Community Members, Not To Be Used As Tool Against Citizens: Madras High Court Case Title: V Varun Kumar and Others v. P Thamizhselvan and Another Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 114 The Madras High Court recently lamented the misuse of the benevolent provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Justice M Dhandpani observed that the Act was a beneficial legislation intended to protect the interests of the members belonging to the communities and should not be used as a tool against the citizens of the country. The Court added that before entertaining complaints under the Act, the SC/ST Commission should ensure that no innocent common man is unnecessarily dragged to go through the rigours of the Act. One Person Can't Have Two Dearness Allowances: Madras High Court On Woman Claiming DA On Regular Pension Despite Receiving Family Pension Case Title: P Vanajakshi v. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 115 The Madras High Court recently noted that one person cannot claim two dearness allowances. Justice C Kumarappan made the observations while dealing with the plea of a woman who claimed dearness allowance on her regular pension in addition to the dearness allowance on her family pension. The court noted that the principle behind Rule 20A(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Provident Fund was to ensure that a person cannot have two dearness allowances. Husband Being A 'Drunkard' Can't Lead To Presumption That He Killed Wife Over Strained Relationship: Madras High Court Sets Aside Conviction Case Title: M Senthilmurugan v. The Inspector of Police Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 116 The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a man for allegedly murdering his wife over their strained relationship. The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal held that merely because the couple had a strained relationship and the husband was a drunkard, it could not lead to a presumption that he killed the wife, in the absence of any evidence to prove the last seen theory or any other evidence. Mere Possession Of Combustible Material Without Ignition Not 'Mischief': Madras High Court Quashes Case U/S 435 IPC Case Title: Mohammed Rafiq and Others v. The State and Another Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 117 The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a group of men for allegedly attempting to damage public property using combustible material near the Central Bus Stand, Udhagamandalam. Justice AD Jagadish Chandira noted that when there was nothing to show that the men had lit the combustible material, it could not be said that mischief had been committed. Residence In Forest Area And Doing Cultivation For Livelihood Necessary To Be Declared As Forest Dwellers: Madras High Court Case Title: AC Murugesan and Others v District Collector and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 118 The Madras High Court has held that continued residence in the forest area and reliance on the forest, by doing cultivation for livelihood, are essential for being declared as a forest dweller under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender noted that the object of the act was to protect the livelihood of forest dwellers. The court thus dismissed the petitions filed by a group of persons claiming “forest dweller” status. The court noted that the parties had not produced anything to show that they were entirely dependent on the forest for their survival. Madras High Court Stays Contempt Proceedings Over Thiruparankundram Deepam Row Case Title: KJ Praveenkumar IAS v Rama Ravikumar and Others ...

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

Upasana Sajeev

Tags