Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The President has appointed Dharmalingam Lingeswaran and Balathandayutham Karthikeyan as Additional Judges of the Madras High Court for two years under Article 224(1) of the Constitution.
Madras High Court upheld the acceptance of resignations of 6 AIADMK MLAs who voted against the party whip to support the Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay’s TVK-led government and subsequently joined TVK, holding that their resignations do not extinguish pending disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule.
Justice T. Vinod Kumar’s transfer to his parent High Court of the State of Telangana was recommended by the Collegium on September 2026.
by Ananya Pattabhiraman* and Badhri Narayanan**
The Court held that the application filed for appointment of sole arbitrator under Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is maintainable as the requirement of notice under Section 21 becomes unnecessary where the petitioner had already disclosed all details in a prior civil suit and the respondent had responded by filing a Section 8 application acknowledging that the dispute must be resolved via arbitration.
The decision was taken in view of Justice T. Vinod Kumar’s ensuing retirement in November 2026.
The Madras High Court also reiterated that an aggravated offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC requires specific proof that the accused was in a position of trust or authority over the victim, which cannot be inferred merely from a relationship.
Citing constitutional provisions and technological advancements, the Tamil Nadu Assembly has called for Tamil to be recognised as the principal language of the Madras High Court.
The Court held that while mere registration of an FIR does not attach stigma and every accused is presumed innocent, the increasing criminal cases involving practising advocates warrant institutional attention and policy consideration by the Bar Councils.
The Court held that the absence of blood and urine tests does not invalidate disciplinary proceedings and that the Drunkenness Certificate issued by the Medical Officer along with the Judicial Magistrate’s observations was sufficient to establish misconduct inside the Court hall.
Justice M.M. Sundresh’s journey from a small town to the highest echelons of the Indian judiciary serves as an inspiration to many aspiring legal minds.
Starting his legal career in 1989, Justice R. Mahadevan’s journey towards becoming a Supreme Court Judge is a story of commitment, expertise, and unwavering dedication to the field of law.
The High Court noted that since documentary evidence clearly established the mother-son relationship, the Authorisation Committee’s refusal was arbitrary and unsustainable, and therefore directed immediate permission for transplantation without delay.
“Once an order of liquidation is passed and a statutory liquidator is appointed, the assets of the corporate debtor are required to be dealt with in accordance with Section 53 IBC i.e. the “waterfall mechanism” and the dues are to be paid in the order of priority set out in the section. Section 238 IBC contains a non-obstante clause giving primacy to the mechanism for distribution of the assets of the corporate debtor in the manner prescribed under the IBC.”
At present, the Madras High Court has a working strength of 52 judges including Chief Justice.
The tragedy of our times lies in confining such a towering national figure within narrow caste-based perceptions. Dr Ambedkar’s larger-than-life legacy is too often reduced to a sectional emblem, when in truth he belongs to the entire nation, to every classroom, every court, every institution of learning, and every citizen who cherishes dignity under the law.
“Wrong classification or mis-description in shipping bills filed for MEIS scrips by the customs broker does not attract penalty under Section 114AA, Customs Act, 1962 due to lack of mens rea and jurisdiction of customs department”
Section 47-A held inapplicable to statutory and court-supervised auctions, ruling that sale certificates are transfers by operation of law—not conveyances—and cannot be reopened for undervaluation by registering authorities.
“The respondents are directed to conduct enquiry independently in this regard and ensure that no injustice is caused to the petitioner by violating her fundamental rights as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
“The trial court failed to note that only when the prosecution proves the foundational facts and there is evidence to show that cruelty was meted out to the deceased in respect of demand of dowry soon before death, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would arise.”