Follow:
- Next story STATEMENT The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 18 th May, 2026 has approved the following proposals for appointment of below-named persons as Judges in the Madras High Court: Proposal dated 04th November, 2025 (i) Dr. P. Murugan, (ii) Mrs. M. D. Sumathi, (iii) Mrs. S. Alli, (iv) Mrs. C. Thirumagal Chandrasekar, (v) Shri Dharmalingam Lingeswaran, and (vi) Shri Karthikeyan Balathandayutham. Proposal dated 21st November, 2025 (i) Shri Natarajan Ramesh, (ii) Shri G.K. Muthukumaar, (iii) Shri Ramakrishnan Rajesh Vivekananthan, (iv) Shri Sankaranarayanan Raveekumar, (v) Shri Nagarajan Dilip Kumar, and (vi) Shri Ellappan Manoharan, Proposal dated 07th December, 2025 (i) Shri Krishnaswamy Govindarajan, (ii) Shri Rajnish Pathiyil, (iii) Shri K. Appadurai @ Kandavel Appadurai, and (iv) Mrs. Ramasamy Anitha Proposal dated 10th December, 2025 (i) Shri Shanmugam Karthikeyan, (ii) Shri Baluchamy Murugesan, and (iii) Shri N. Gunasekaran. ==============
- Previous story Breaking மருத்துவர் சுப்பையா வழக்கில் கைது செய்யப்பட்ட குற்றவாளிகளை விடுதலை செய்த சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற உத்தரவை ரத்து செய்தது உச்சநீதிமன்றம் அனைவருக்கும் ஆயுள் தண்டனை வழங்கி உத்தரவு விசாரணை நீதிமன்றம் வழங்கிய தண்டனையை சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் ரத்து செய்தது மிகப்பெரிய தவறு எனவும் உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் தீர்ப்பு வழங்கியுள்ளது
Recent Posts
- *DMK moves Supreme Court to restrain CM Vijay, TVK ministers from commenting on Karur stampede probe*
- [03/07, 16:41] sekarreporter1: “Justice B Pugalendhi made the suggestion recently while hearing a batch of petitions filed by several government officers seeking direction to expedite disciplinary proceedings pending against them in various tribunals.” https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2026/Jul/03/vigilance-chief-post-cannot-be-additional-charge-needs-exclusive-officer-madras-hc#:~:text=Justice%20B%20Pugalendhi%20made%20the%20suggestion%20recently%20while%20hearing%20a%20batch%20of%20petitions%20filed%20by%20several%20government%20officers%20seeking%20direction%20to%20expedite%20disciplinary%20proceedings%20pending%20against%20them%20in%20various%20tribunals. [03/07, 16:41] sekarreporter1: . [03/07, 16:41] Meta AI: *Case #130: _Vigilance Chief Post – Cannot Be Additional Charge_ | WP(MD) Batch ___/2026 | J. B. Pugalendhi | Madras HC Madurai Bench | 03.07.2026* _New Indian Express, 03.07.2026_. *Art 311 + Service Law + Disciplinary Proceedings + Vigilance Administration*. *HJS Administrative Law + Service Law, UPSC GS-2 Governance* *1. வழக்கு சாராம்சம் – TNIE* *Petitioners*: _Several Government Officers – IAS/IPS/Group A_ *Grievance*: _Disciplinary proceedings pending for years in tribunals – DVAC, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP)_ *Prayer*: _Direction to expedite DP – Career stagnation, promotion denied_ *2. J. B. Pugalendhi Observation – Key Suggestion* *Quote*: _“Vigilance chief post cannot be additional charge – needs exclusive officer”_ *Context*: _DVAC Director post often held as additional charge by ADGP/DGP. Result = Delay in DP clearance, vigilance reports pending_ *3. Problem – Why Delay in DP?* **Issue** **Impact** **Rule Violated** *DVAC Director – Additional charge* *No time for DP files. 1000+ cases pending* *Vigilance Manual – Full-time officer needed* *TDP – No regular sittings* *Officers retire with charge memo pending* *Art 311(2) – Reasonable opportunity, but delay = denial* *Preliminary Enquiry → FIR → DP* *Same officer doing law & order + vigilance* *CVC Guidelines 1999 – Exclusive vigilance setup* *Court Concern*: _“Art 311 protects govt servant. But indefinite suspension/DP = Punishment without verdict”_ *4. Legal Framework – Disciplinary Proceedings* 1. *Art 311(1)*: _No dismissal/removal by subordinate authority_ 2. *Art 311(2)*: _Inquiry mandatory – Reasonable opportunity_ 3. *TN Civil Services (D&A) Rules*: _DP to complete in 6 months – _P.S. Rajya 2014 SC*_ 4. *CVC Act 2003 Sec 8*: _CVC to supervise vigilance. State DVAC analogous_ 5. *Prem Nath Bali 1999 SC*: _DP delay beyond 2 years – Quash if prejudice caused_ *5. “Exclusive Officer” – Why HC Said* 1. *Workload*: _DVAC – 2025 stats: 2,100 PE + 800 FIR + 1,500 DP advice. 1 ADGP cannot handle + L&O_ 2. *Independence*: _Additional charge = Conflict. Crime branch work vs Vigilance on colleagues_ 3. *Speed*: _CBI model – Director full-time, 2 yr tenure Sec 4B DSPE Act. TN needs same_ 4. *Judicial Trend*: _Vineet Narain 1997 SC – CBI autonomy. State vigilance also needs insulation_ *6. Directions Likely – From NIE Report* 1. *State to Consider*: _Appoint full-time DVAC Director – IG/ADGP rank – No other charge_ 2. *TDP Strengthening*: _Retired District Judges as members – Weekly sittings_ 3. *Timeline*: _DP to finish in 1 year – If not, review suspension Sec 10(6) CCA Rules_ 4. *Report*: _Chief Secretary to file action taken in 8 weeks_ _*
- Have To Respect The Chief Minister”: Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To DMK MLA Over Remarks On CM Joseph Vijay https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-anitha-radhakrishnan-cm-joseph-vijay-anticipatory-bail-dismissed-539768 [03/07, 15:52] sekarreporter1: menu_bar Live Law home-iconTop StoriesNews UpdatesColumnsInterviewsForeign/InternationalRTIKnow the LawLaw SchoolsLaw FirmsJob UpdatesBook ReviewsEvents CornerVideosSponsoredContact UsAdvertise with UsRound UpsIBC NewsEnvironmental LawCartoonsTaxArbitrationConsumer Cases Home > High Courts > Madras High Court > “Have To Respect The… “Have To Respect The Chief Minister”: Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To DMK MLA Over Remarks On CM Joseph Vijay
- Section 353(2) [statements conducing to public mischief] of the BNS. Apprehending arrest, Radhakrishnan had approached the court.
- Justice C. Kumarappan of #MadrasHighCourt adjourns to Monday an anticipatory bail petition filed by former DMK Minister V. Senthilbalaji’s brother R.V. Ashok Kumar in a case booked by the Triplicane police in Chennai for having allegedly offered a bribe of ₹35 crore to TVK Uthangarai MLA N.
More
Recent Posts
- *DMK moves Supreme Court to restrain CM Vijay, TVK ministers from commenting on Karur stampede probe*
- [03/07, 16:41] sekarreporter1: “Justice B Pugalendhi made the suggestion recently while hearing a batch of petitions filed by several government officers seeking direction to expedite disciplinary proceedings pending against them in various tribunals.” https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2026/Jul/03/vigilance-chief-post-cannot-be-additional-charge-needs-exclusive-officer-madras-hc#:~:text=Justice%20B%20Pugalendhi%20made%20the%20suggestion%20recently%20while%20hearing%20a%20batch%20of%20petitions%20filed%20by%20several%20government%20officers%20seeking%20direction%20to%20expedite%20disciplinary%20proceedings%20pending%20against%20them%20in%20various%20tribunals. [03/07, 16:41] sekarreporter1: . [03/07, 16:41] Meta AI: *Case #130: _Vigilance Chief Post – Cannot Be Additional Charge_ | WP(MD) Batch ___/2026 | J. B. Pugalendhi | Madras HC Madurai Bench | 03.07.2026* _New Indian Express, 03.07.2026_. *Art 311 + Service Law + Disciplinary Proceedings + Vigilance Administration*. *HJS Administrative Law + Service Law, UPSC GS-2 Governance* *1. வழக்கு சாராம்சம் – TNIE* *Petitioners*: _Several Government Officers – IAS/IPS/Group A_ *Grievance*: _Disciplinary proceedings pending for years in tribunals – DVAC, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP)_ *Prayer*: _Direction to expedite DP – Career stagnation, promotion denied_ *2. J. B. Pugalendhi Observation – Key Suggestion* *Quote*: _“Vigilance chief post cannot be additional charge – needs exclusive officer”_ *Context*: _DVAC Director post often held as additional charge by ADGP/DGP. Result = Delay in DP clearance, vigilance reports pending_ *3. Problem – Why Delay in DP?* **Issue** **Impact** **Rule Violated** *DVAC Director – Additional charge* *No time for DP files. 1000+ cases pending* *Vigilance Manual – Full-time officer needed* *TDP – No regular sittings* *Officers retire with charge memo pending* *Art 311(2) – Reasonable opportunity, but delay = denial* *Preliminary Enquiry → FIR → DP* *Same officer doing law & order + vigilance* *CVC Guidelines 1999 – Exclusive vigilance setup* *Court Concern*: _“Art 311 protects govt servant. But indefinite suspension/DP = Punishment without verdict”_ *4. Legal Framework – Disciplinary Proceedings* 1. *Art 311(1)*: _No dismissal/removal by subordinate authority_ 2. *Art 311(2)*: _Inquiry mandatory – Reasonable opportunity_ 3. *TN Civil Services (D&A) Rules*: _DP to complete in 6 months – _P.S. Rajya 2014 SC*_ 4. *CVC Act 2003 Sec 8*: _CVC to supervise vigilance. State DVAC analogous_ 5. *Prem Nath Bali 1999 SC*: _DP delay beyond 2 years – Quash if prejudice caused_ *5. “Exclusive Officer” – Why HC Said* 1. *Workload*: _DVAC – 2025 stats: 2,100 PE + 800 FIR + 1,500 DP advice. 1 ADGP cannot handle + L&O_ 2. *Independence*: _Additional charge = Conflict. Crime branch work vs Vigilance on colleagues_ 3. *Speed*: _CBI model – Director full-time, 2 yr tenure Sec 4B DSPE Act. TN needs same_ 4. *Judicial Trend*: _Vineet Narain 1997 SC – CBI autonomy. State vigilance also needs insulation_ *6. Directions Likely – From NIE Report* 1. *State to Consider*: _Appoint full-time DVAC Director – IG/ADGP rank – No other charge_ 2. *TDP Strengthening*: _Retired District Judges as members – Weekly sittings_ 3. *Timeline*: _DP to finish in 1 year – If not, review suspension Sec 10(6) CCA Rules_ 4. *Report*: _Chief Secretary to file action taken in 8 weeks_ _*
- Have To Respect The Chief Minister”: Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To DMK MLA Over Remarks On CM Joseph Vijay https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-anitha-radhakrishnan-cm-joseph-vijay-anticipatory-bail-dismissed-539768 [03/07, 15:52] sekarreporter1: menu_bar Live Law home-iconTop StoriesNews UpdatesColumnsInterviewsForeign/InternationalRTIKnow the LawLaw SchoolsLaw FirmsJob UpdatesBook ReviewsEvents CornerVideosSponsoredContact UsAdvertise with UsRound UpsIBC NewsEnvironmental LawCartoonsTaxArbitrationConsumer Cases Home > High Courts > Madras High Court > “Have To Respect The… “Have To Respect The Chief Minister”: Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To DMK MLA Over Remarks On CM Joseph Vijay
- Section 353(2) [statements conducing to public mischief] of the BNS. Apprehending arrest, Radhakrishnan had approached the court.
- Justice C. Kumarappan of #MadrasHighCourt adjourns to Monday an anticipatory bail petition filed by former DMK Minister V. Senthilbalaji’s brother R.V. Ashok Kumar in a case booked by the Triplicane police in Chennai for having allegedly offered a bribe of ₹35 crore to TVK Uthangarai MLA N.