28 October 2026
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has recast how temple entry works for non-Hindus in Tamil Nadu. Justices G R Swaminathan and P Murugan heard a petition on Agamic temples, which are run according to the Agama texts. The bench held that Agamic injunctions can no longer be applied against any class of Hindus, because the Constitution ranks paramount. But it said a non-Hindu who wears religious markers of another faith may go past the flag-pole only after signing an undertaking prescribed by the temple, affirming reverence for the deity. A non-Hindu wearing such markers who does not sign may be kept out of the temple premises altogether. The case is Thangam Venkatesh versus State of Tamil Nadu, W.P.(MD) No. 30452 of 2026.
Case:
Thangam Venkatesh v State of Tamil Nadu, W.P.(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
Bench:
Justices G R Swaminathan and P Murugan
Why it matters for exams: The Madras High Court's Madurai Bench held that entry restrictions on non-Hindus in Agamic temples cannot be absolute, but a temple-prescribed undertaking may be insisted upon.
Kerala PSCUPSC
In plain words
Agamic temple A temple built and worshipped in according to the Agama texts — The Agamas are the ritual texts that govern temple worship and architecture.
27 October 2026
The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with the cancellation of a man's Overseas Citizen of India registration. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy heard the case of John Daniel versus Union of India, W.P. No. 37464 of 2026. The court found that he worked as a professional missionary in India without the permission that is required. Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, 1955 allows the Central Government to cancel an OCI registration where the holder has violated the Act or another law notified in the Official Gazette. Under Section 7B the Centre issued S.O. 1050(E), which requires prior permission for missionary, mountaineering, journalistic and certain public activities. The court also rejected the plea that natural justice was denied, since the authorities relied on substantial material. He may apply for a regular visa to see his mother, but needs permission for religious meetings.
Case:
John Daniel v Union of India, W.P. No. 37464 of 2026
Cancellation power:
Section 7D, Citizenship Act, 1955
Permission requirement:
S.O. 1050(E) under Section 7B
Why it matters for exams: Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is the power to cancel an OCI registration, and S.O. 1050(E) under Section 7B requires prior permission for missionary work.
Kerala PSCUPSC
In plain words
OCI Overseas Citizen of India — A lifelong visa status for people of Indian origin holding foreign passports.
3 November 2026
The Madras High Court has settled a practical question about court fees. In Susheela Kawar versus M Pettu Lakshmi, reported as 2026 MHC 4385, Justice P B Balaji held that parties are not entitled to a refund of court fee when a matter is settled out of court after evidence has been recorded. Under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, Section 69 allows a refund where the case ends before evidence is recorded, while Section 69-A gives a full refund where a dispute referred under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure is settled. The court said the legislature deliberately barred a refund once evidence has been recorded on the merits, and that court fee goes to the State exchequer, which pays for courts and trials. Both revision petitions were dismissed. A copy of the order was sent to the Tamil Nadu Law Commission to examine the gap where a case referred to mediation fails to settle and returns to trial.
Case:
Susheela Kawar v M Pettu Lakshmi, 2026 MHC 4385
Cut-off stage:
Recording of evidence
Act:
Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955
Why it matters for exams: The Madras High Court held that court fee is not refundable when a suit is settled out of court after the recording of evidence.
Kerala PSCUPSC
4 November 2026
The Supreme Court has stayed a Madras High Court order that would have taken the administration of a major Tamil Nadu temple out of the hands of its traditional trustees. On 30 October the High Court, disposing of a batch of writ petitions, directed a five-member Board of Management for the Sri Sabanayagar Temple at Chidambaram, better known as the Chidambaram Nataraja temple. The board was to be chaired by retired judge V Bharathidasan, co-chaired by retired judge R Suresh Kumar, and include retired IAS officer C Rajendran, with the Secretary of the Podhu Dikshitars and the Secretary of the endowments department as ex officio members. It was to oversee finances and properties, recover encroached land and rent arrears and ensure equal darshan, while daily rituals stayed with the Podhu Dikshitars. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul Pancholi passed the interim stay on the Podhu Dikshitars' plea, which rests on their right to administer under Article 26.
Temple:
Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram
Supreme Court bench:
Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul Pancholi
Board size ordered by the High Court:
Five members
Why it matters for exams: The Chidambaram Nataraja temple is officially the Sri Sabanayagar Temple, administered by the Podhu Dikshitars, who claim the right under Article 26.
Kerala PSCUPSC
2 November 2026
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ordered Tamil Nadu's Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to see that every staff member of the public temples under it gets a living wage. Justices G R Swaminathan and P Murugan decided Periyanambi Narasimha Gopalan versus The Secretary to Government, W.P.(MD) No. 30465 of 2026, filed under Article 226. The bench recorded that many temple staff in the State are paid less than the lowest National Floor Level Minimum Wage of ₹176 a day. It said the department cannot plead lack of resources when several ways of raising funds exist, and suggested revenue models drawn up with industrialists and devotee groups each taking charge of a temple. Earlier Division Bench directions, more than three years old, had asked that pay follow the Minimum Wages Act and match government servants' scales. The Commissioner must file an action-taken report in two months.
Case:
Periyanambi Narasimha Gopalan v The Secretary to Government, W.P.(MD) No. 30465 of 2026
National Floor Level Minimum Wage:
₹176 a day
Report due in:
Two months
Why it matters for exams: The Madras High Court applied the Minimum Wages Act to public temple staff and noted that the lowest National Floor Level Minimum Wage is ₹176 a day.
Kerala PSCUPSC
29 October 2026
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has drawn a line around the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Justices G R Swaminathan and P Murugan heard a public interest petition about the vacant seat of the Sriranganarayana Jeeyar Madam attached to the Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple at Srirangam. The bench held that selecting a pontiff is a purely religious function, not a secular or administrative one, so the department cannot appoint a Jeeyar or approve an appointment. It said a Jeeyar is a servant of the deity and not a temple employee, so he is outside the department's ordinary disciplinary jurisdiction, except where a mutt head misuses his position. A vacancy that stops spiritual functions breaches the petitioner's right under Article 25 of the Constitution. The department was told to convene the Sthalattars to pick a successor, and the State said one would be appointed within six months. The case is S Veeraraghavan versus State of Tamil Nadu, W.P.(MD) No. 30431 of 2026.
Case:
S Veeraraghavan v State of Tamil Nadu, W.P.(MD) No. 30431 of 2026
Temple:
Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam
Constitutional provision:
Article 25
Why it matters for exams: The Madras High Court held that appointing a mutt pontiff is a religious function outside the HR&CE Department's power, and that Article 25 protects the worshipper's right.
Kerala PSCUPSC
In plain words
HR&CE Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department — The Tamil Nadu department that administers Hindu temples and endowments.
30 October 2026
The Madras High Court has marked out where criticism of the judiciary stops being protected speech. A bench of Chief Justice S A Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan decided R Karthikeyan versus Union of India. It directed the State not to permit public meetings or marches meant to defame, target or intimidate a sitting judge. At the same time the bench refused to impose a blanket ban on discussing court orders, which it said would be too wide. It held that abusive, defamatory or caste-based attacks on judges do not enjoy the protection of Article 19(1)(a) and fall within the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2). The court also asked the police to monitor online content aimed at judges. Fair criticism of a judgment, it said, stands on a different footing from a coordinated attack on the judge who wrote it.
Case:
R Karthikeyan v Union of India
Bench:
Chief Justice S A Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan
Provision discussed:
Article 19(1)(a)
Why it matters for exams: The Madras High Court held that abusive, defamatory or caste-based attacks on sitting judges fall outside the free speech protection of Article 19(1)(a).
Kerala PSCUPSC
Background
The Indian Institute of Technology Madras works from Chennai and carries the tag of an Institute of Eminence. It has taken its teaching outside India as well, with an IITM Zanzibar campus, and outside the campus altogether through non-campus BS programmes. The large open-course effort it hosts is NPTEL. Its departments run from the usual engineering and science subjects to Ocean Engineering and to Data Science, and its national research centres include the National Centre for Combustion Research and Development and the National Technology Centre for Ports, Waterways and Coasts. It also keeps a Centre for Railway Research of its own. On the industry side the institute has the IITM Research Park beside the campus, an Incubation Cell, an IITM Bioincubator, and IITM Pravartak for technology work.
City:
Chennai
Overseas campus:
Zanzibar
Open course platform hosted:
NPTEL
Why it matters for exams: The Institute of Eminence tag, the overseas campus at Zanzibar and the body that hosts NPTEL are all asked about in education and science questions.
Kerala PSCUPSCSSC
Background
The CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre at Chennai is one of the national laboratories of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, and its field is the behaviour of built structures. Its research is grouped into a handful of areas, among them Structural Health Monitoring and life extension, Disaster Mitigation, Advanced Materials for Sustainable Structures, Energy Infrastructure and Offshore Structures. Its laboratories include the Advanced Concrete Testing and evaluation laboratory, an advanced materials laboratory, a protective structures and mechanics laboratory, the Advanced Seismic Testing and research laboratory, a Fatigue and fracture laboratory, a Steel Structures Laboratory and a structural health monitoring laboratory. Two large outdoor facilities sit alongside them: the Tower Testing and Research Station, which works on towers and tower-like structures of the kind that carry power transmission and communication networks, and the Wind Engineering Laboratory. The Tower Testing and Research Station has a campus of its own at Tirusulam in Chennai, opposite the airport. The centre also runs the research council's school outreach work, including JIGYASA and an Atal Tinkering Lab.
City:
Chennai
Parent council:
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
Outdoor facilities:
Tower Testing station and Wind Engineering Laboratory
Why it matters for exams: Which research council runs a named national laboratory, and where it sits, is a recurring question, and the outreach programme JIGYASA is itself asked about.
Kerala PSCUPSCSSC
Background
The Madras High Court has sent a temple festival dispute between two groups to the Joint Commissioner in the State's Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, telling him to settle it on merits and without any reference to caste. The law he will work under is the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which is Act 22 of 1959. It replaced the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, after parts of the earlier law were held to be beyond the State legislature's power. The Act was written to cover every Hindu public religious institution and endowment in the State, with two exceptions: the incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms of Kanyakumari district and of Shencottah taluk in Tirunelveli district. For a listed religious institution, meaning one with an annual income of not less than Rs. 20,000 and no hereditary trustee, the Commissioner constitutes a Board of Trustees with at least three members and at most five, and the Assistant Commissioner does the same work for non-listed temples. A later amendment made it obligatory to appoint a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes to the trustee board of a listed temple. Another amendment to section 116 gave the government power to make rules on hundials and similar collection boxes.
Statute number:
Act 22 of 1959
Listed institution income:
Not less than Rs. 20,000 a year
Trustee board size:
Three to five persons
Why it matters for exams: The HR&CE Act is the statute behind every Tamil Nadu temple administration case, and its listed-institution test, trustee board and excluded tracts are the parts that get asked.
Kerala PSCUPSCSSC
Background
IIITDM Kancheepuram describes itself as an Institute of National Importance specialised in IT Enabled Design and Manufacturing, and it works under the motto Innovate, Design, Create. Its teaching departments are Computer Science and Engineering, Electronics and Communication Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Sciences and Humanities. Beside these it runs a School of Interdisciplinary Design and Innovation. Two central facilities serve the whole campus, the Institute Computer Centre and the Institute Instrumentation Centre. Its affairs are settled by the bodies common to such institutes: a Board of Governors, a Senate, a Finance Committee and a Building and Works Committee. For taking research out to firms, the institute keeps a technology business incubator known as the MaDeIT Foundation. Its own address puts the campus off the Vandalur-Kelambakkam Road at Chennai 600127.
Campus:
Off Vandalur-Kelambakkam Road, Chennai 600127
Speciality:
IT Enabled Design and Manufacturing
Incubator:
MaDeIT Foundation
Why it matters for exams: The list of Institutes of National Importance, and which one is the specialist in design and manufacturing, is asked in education questions.
Kerala PSCUPSCSSC
Background
Roads in Tamil Nadu other than National Highways are governed by the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, placed on the statute book as Act 34 of 2002. The reasons given for it were plain: there was no separate State law for such roads, so one was needed to declare them, to fix lines along them, to keep encroachment off them and to acquire land for them. The Act extends to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu. Under it a road can be brought into one of four grades, as a State Highway, a Major District Road, an Other District Road or a Village Road. It restricts ribbon development along such a highway, provides for removing encroachments, and allows the levy of betterment charges under section 34. A building line and a control line are fixed on either side of a highway under section 8, and a Highways Authority is an officer appointed under the Act. Its definition of a highway expressly leaves out a National Highway declared under the National Highways Act, 1956, and Collector means the Collector of a district. The Supreme Court has upheld the Act, holding that it cannot be faulted as arbitrary when set beside the central land acquisition law of 2013, and resting that conclusion partly on Article 254(2) of the Constitution.
Statute number:
Act 34 of 2002
Grades of road:
State Highway, Major District Road, Other District Road, Village Road
Betterment charges section:
Section 34
Why it matters for exams: The four grades of State road, the building and control lines and the betterment charge are the exam-relevant parts of a State highways statute, and the Supreme Court's use of Article 254(2) is a Polity point.
Kerala PSCUPSCSSC